US6942469B2  Solenoid cassette pump with servo controlled volume detection  Google Patents
Solenoid cassette pump with servo controlled volume detection Download PDFInfo
 Publication number
 US6942469B2 US6942469B2 US09771892 US77189201A US6942469B2 US 6942469 B2 US6942469 B2 US 6942469B2 US 09771892 US09771892 US 09771892 US 77189201 A US77189201 A US 77189201A US 6942469 B2 US6942469 B2 US 6942469B2
 Authority
 US
 Grant status
 Grant
 Patent type
 Prior art keywords
 current
 magnetic
 solenoid
 flux
 control
 Prior art date
 Legal status (The legal status is an assumption and is not a legal conclusion. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation as to the accuracy of the status listed.)
 Expired  Fee Related
Links
Images
Classifications

 H—ELECTRICITY
 H02—GENERATION; CONVERSION OR DISTRIBUTION OF ELECTRIC POWER
 H02N—ELECTRIC MACHINES NOT OTHERWISE PROVIDED FOR
 H02N15/00—Holding or levitation devices using magnetic attraction or repulsion, not otherwise provided for

 B—PERFORMING OPERATIONS; TRANSPORTING
 B60—VEHICLES IN GENERAL
 B60L—ELECTRIC EQUIPMENT OR PROPULSION OF ELECTRICALLYPROPELLED VEHICLES; MAGNETIC SUSPENSION OR LEVITATION FOR VEHICLES; ELECTRODYNAMIC BRAKE SYSTEMS FOR VEHICLES, IN GENERAL
 B60L13/00—Electric propulsion for monorail vehicles, suspension vehicles or rack railways; Magnetic suspension or levitation for vehicles
 B60L13/04—Magnetic suspension or levitation for vehicles
 B60L13/06—Means to sense or control vehicle position or attitude with respect to railway

 F—MECHANICAL ENGINEERING; LIGHTING; HEATING; WEAPONS; BLASTING
 F01—MACHINES OR ENGINES IN GENERAL; ENGINE PLANTS IN GENERAL; STEAM ENGINES
 F01L—CYCLICALLY OPERATING VALVES FOR MACHINES OR ENGINES
 F01L9/00—Valvegear or valve arrangements actuated nonmechanically
 F01L9/04—Valvegear or valve arrangements actuated nonmechanically by electric means

 F—MECHANICAL ENGINEERING; LIGHTING; HEATING; WEAPONS; BLASTING
 F02—COMBUSTION ENGINES; HOTGAS OR COMBUSTIONPRODUCT ENGINE PLANTS
 F02D—CONTROLLING COMBUSTION ENGINES
 F02D13/00—Controlling the engine output power by varying inlet or exhaust valve operating characteristics, e.g. timing
 F02D13/02—Controlling the engine output power by varying inlet or exhaust valve operating characteristics, e.g. timing during engine operation
 F02D13/0253—Fully variable control of valve lift and timing using camless actuation systems such as hydraulic, pneumatic or electromagnetic actuators, e.g. solenoid valves

 F—MECHANICAL ENGINEERING; LIGHTING; HEATING; WEAPONS; BLASTING
 F02—COMBUSTION ENGINES; HOTGAS OR COMBUSTIONPRODUCT ENGINE PLANTS
 F02D—CONTROLLING COMBUSTION ENGINES
 F02D41/00—Electrical control of supply of combustible mixture or its constituents
 F02D41/20—Output circuits, e.g. for controlling currents in command coils

 H—ELECTRICITY
 H01—BASIC ELECTRIC ELEMENTS
 H01F—MAGNETS; INDUCTANCES; TRANSFORMERS; SELECTION OF MATERIALS FOR THEIR MAGNETIC PROPERTIES
 H01F7/00—Magnets
 H01F7/06—Electromagnets; Actuators including electromagnets
 H01F7/08—Electromagnets; Actuators including electromagnets with armatures
 H01F7/18—Circuit arrangements for obtaining desired operating characteristics, e.g. for slow operation, for sequential energisation of windings, for highspeed energisation of windings

 H—ELECTRICITY
 H01—BASIC ELECTRIC ELEMENTS
 H01H—ELECTRIC SWITCHES; RELAYS; SELECTORS; EMERGENCY PROTECTIVE DEVICES
 H01H47/00—Circuit arrangements not adapted to a particular application of the relay and designed to obtain desired operating characteristics or to provide energising current
 H01H47/22—Circuit arrangements not adapted to a particular application of the relay and designed to obtain desired operating characteristics or to provide energising current for supplying energising current for relay coil
 H01H47/32—Energising current supplied by semiconductor device
 H01H47/325—Energising current supplied by semiconductor device by switching regulator

 H—ELECTRICITY
 H02—GENERATION; CONVERSION OR DISTRIBUTION OF ELECTRIC POWER
 H02K—DYNAMOELECTRIC MACHINES
 H02K41/00—Propulsion systems in which a rigid body is moved along a path due to dynamoelectric interaction between the body and a magnetic field travelling along the path
 H02K41/02—Linear motors; Sectional motors
 H02K41/03—Synchronous motors; Motors moving step by step; Reluctance motors

 H—ELECTRICITY
 H02—GENERATION; CONVERSION OR DISTRIBUTION OF ELECTRIC POWER
 H02P—CONTROL OR REGULATION OF ELECTRIC MOTORS, ELECTRIC GENERATORS OR DYNAMOELECTRIC CONVERTERS; CONTROLLING TRANSFORMERS, REACTORS OR CHOKE COILS
 H02P25/00—Arrangements or methods for the control of AC motors characterised by the kind of AC motor or by structural details
 H02P25/02—Arrangements or methods for the control of AC motors characterised by the kind of AC motor or by structural details characterised by the kind of motor
 H02P25/032—Reciprocating, oscillating or vibrating motors

 F—MECHANICAL ENGINEERING; LIGHTING; HEATING; WEAPONS; BLASTING
 F01—MACHINES OR ENGINES IN GENERAL; ENGINE PLANTS IN GENERAL; STEAM ENGINES
 F01L—CYCLICALLY OPERATING VALVES FOR MACHINES OR ENGINES
 F01L9/00—Valvegear or valve arrangements actuated nonmechanically
 F01L9/04—Valvegear or valve arrangements actuated nonmechanically by electric means
 F01L2009/0405—Electromagnetic actuators comprising two or more coils

 F—MECHANICAL ENGINEERING; LIGHTING; HEATING; WEAPONS; BLASTING
 F01—MACHINES OR ENGINES IN GENERAL; ENGINE PLANTS IN GENERAL; STEAM ENGINES
 F01L—CYCLICALLY OPERATING VALVES FOR MACHINES OR ENGINES
 F01L9/00—Valvegear or valve arrangements actuated nonmechanically
 F01L9/04—Valvegear or valve arrangements actuated nonmechanically by electric means
 F01L2009/0478—Electromagnetic actuators; Method of operation thereof
 F01L2009/0486—Soft landing, e.g. applying braking current; Levitation of armature close to core surface

 F—MECHANICAL ENGINEERING; LIGHTING; HEATING; WEAPONS; BLASTING
 F02—COMBUSTION ENGINES; HOTGAS OR COMBUSTIONPRODUCT ENGINE PLANTS
 F02D—CONTROLLING COMBUSTION ENGINES
 F02D41/00—Electrical control of supply of combustible mixture or its constituents
 F02D41/0002—Controlling intake air
 F02D2041/001—Controlling intake air for engines with variable valve actuation

 F—MECHANICAL ENGINEERING; LIGHTING; HEATING; WEAPONS; BLASTING
 F02—COMBUSTION ENGINES; HOTGAS OR COMBUSTIONPRODUCT ENGINE PLANTS
 F02D—CONTROLLING COMBUSTION ENGINES
 F02D41/00—Electrical control of supply of combustible mixture or its constituents
 F02D41/02—Circuit arrangements for generating control signals
 F02D41/14—Introducing closedloop corrections
 F02D41/1401—Introducing closedloop corrections characterised by the control or regulation method
 F02D2041/1413—Controller structures or design
 F02D2041/1418—Several control loops, either as alternatives or simultaneous
 F02D2041/1419—Several control loops, either as alternatives or simultaneous the control loops being cascaded, i.e. being placed in series or nested

 F—MECHANICAL ENGINEERING; LIGHTING; HEATING; WEAPONS; BLASTING
 F02—COMBUSTION ENGINES; HOTGAS OR COMBUSTIONPRODUCT ENGINE PLANTS
 F02D—CONTROLLING COMBUSTION ENGINES
 F02D41/00—Electrical control of supply of combustible mixture or its constituents
 F02D41/20—Output circuits, e.g. for controlling currents in command coils
 F02D2041/202—Output circuits, e.g. for controlling currents in command coils characterised by the control of the circuit
 F02D2041/2024—Output circuits, e.g. for controlling currents in command coils characterised by the control of the circuit the control switching a load after timeon and timeoff pulses
 F02D2041/2027—Control of the current by pulse width modulation or duty cycle control

 F—MECHANICAL ENGINEERING; LIGHTING; HEATING; WEAPONS; BLASTING
 F02—COMBUSTION ENGINES; HOTGAS OR COMBUSTIONPRODUCT ENGINE PLANTS
 F02D—CONTROLLING COMBUSTION ENGINES
 F02D41/00—Electrical control of supply of combustible mixture or its constituents
 F02D41/20—Output circuits, e.g. for controlling currents in command coils
 F02D2041/202—Output circuits, e.g. for controlling currents in command coils characterised by the control of the circuit
 F02D2041/2055—Output circuits, e.g. for controlling currents in command coils characterised by the control of the circuit with means for determining actual opening or closing time

 F—MECHANICAL ENGINEERING; LIGHTING; HEATING; WEAPONS; BLASTING
 F02—COMBUSTION ENGINES; HOTGAS OR COMBUSTIONPRODUCT ENGINE PLANTS
 F02D—CONTROLLING COMBUSTION ENGINES
 F02D41/00—Electrical control of supply of combustible mixture or its constituents
 F02D41/20—Output circuits, e.g. for controlling currents in command coils
 F02D2041/202—Output circuits, e.g. for controlling currents in command coils characterised by the control of the circuit
 F02D2041/2058—Output circuits, e.g. for controlling currents in command coils characterised by the control of the circuit using information of the actual current value

 F—MECHANICAL ENGINEERING; LIGHTING; HEATING; WEAPONS; BLASTING
 F02—COMBUSTION ENGINES; HOTGAS OR COMBUSTIONPRODUCT ENGINE PLANTS
 F02D—CONTROLLING COMBUSTION ENGINES
 F02D41/00—Electrical control of supply of combustible mixture or its constituents
 F02D41/20—Output circuits, e.g. for controlling currents in command coils
 F02D2041/2068—Output circuits, e.g. for controlling currents in command coils characterised by the circuit design or special circuit elements
 F02D2041/2079—Output circuits, e.g. for controlling currents in command coils characterised by the circuit design or special circuit elements the circuit having several coils acting on the same anchor

 F—MECHANICAL ENGINEERING; LIGHTING; HEATING; WEAPONS; BLASTING
 F02—COMBUSTION ENGINES; HOTGAS OR COMBUSTIONPRODUCT ENGINE PLANTS
 F02D—CONTROLLING COMBUSTION ENGINES
 F02D41/00—Electrical control of supply of combustible mixture or its constituents
 F02D41/02—Circuit arrangements for generating control signals
 F02D41/14—Introducing closedloop corrections
 F02D41/1401—Introducing closedloop corrections characterised by the control or regulation method

 H—ELECTRICITY
 H01—BASIC ELECTRIC ELEMENTS
 H01F—MAGNETS; INDUCTANCES; TRANSFORMERS; SELECTION OF MATERIALS FOR THEIR MAGNETIC PROPERTIES
 H01F7/00—Magnets
 H01F7/06—Electromagnets; Actuators including electromagnets
 H01F7/08—Electromagnets; Actuators including electromagnets with armatures
 H01F7/18—Circuit arrangements for obtaining desired operating characteristics, e.g. for slow operation, for sequential energisation of windings, for highspeed energisation of windings
 H01F7/1844—Monitoring or failsafe circuits
 H01F2007/185—Monitoring or failsafe circuits with armature position measurement

 H—ELECTRICITY
 H01—BASIC ELECTRIC ELEMENTS
 H01F—MAGNETS; INDUCTANCES; TRANSFORMERS; SELECTION OF MATERIALS FOR THEIR MAGNETIC PROPERTIES
 H01F7/00—Magnets
 H01F7/06—Electromagnets; Actuators including electromagnets
 H01F7/08—Electromagnets; Actuators including electromagnets with armatures
 H01F7/18—Circuit arrangements for obtaining desired operating characteristics, e.g. for slow operation, for sequential energisation of windings, for highspeed energisation of windings
 H01F7/1844—Monitoring or failsafe circuits
 H01F2007/1866—Monitoring or failsafe circuits with regulation loop

 H—ELECTRICITY
 H01—BASIC ELECTRIC ELEMENTS
 H01F—MAGNETS; INDUCTANCES; TRANSFORMERS; SELECTION OF MATERIALS FOR THEIR MAGNETIC PROPERTIES
 H01F7/00—Magnets
 H01F7/06—Electromagnets; Actuators including electromagnets
 H01F7/08—Electromagnets; Actuators including electromagnets with armatures
 H01F7/18—Circuit arrangements for obtaining desired operating characteristics, e.g. for slow operation, for sequential energisation of windings, for highspeed energisation of windings
 H01F2007/1894—Circuit arrangements for obtaining desired operating characteristics, e.g. for slow operation, for sequential energisation of windings, for highspeed energisation of windings minimizing impact energy on closure of magnetic circuit

 H—ELECTRICITY
 H01—BASIC ELECTRIC ELEMENTS
 H01F—MAGNETS; INDUCTANCES; TRANSFORMERS; SELECTION OF MATERIALS FOR THEIR MAGNETIC PROPERTIES
 H01F7/00—Magnets
 H01F7/06—Electromagnets; Actuators including electromagnets
 H01F7/08—Electromagnets; Actuators including electromagnets with armatures
 H01F7/16—Rectilinearlymovable armatures
 H01F7/1607—Armatures entering the winding

 H—ELECTRICITY
 H01—BASIC ELECTRIC ELEMENTS
 H01F—MAGNETS; INDUCTANCES; TRANSFORMERS; SELECTION OF MATERIALS FOR THEIR MAGNETIC PROPERTIES
 H01F7/00—Magnets
 H01F7/06—Electromagnets; Actuators including electromagnets
 H01F7/08—Electromagnets; Actuators including electromagnets with armatures
 H01F7/18—Circuit arrangements for obtaining desired operating characteristics, e.g. for slow operation, for sequential energisation of windings, for highspeed energisation of windings
 H01F7/1844—Monitoring or failsafe circuits

 Y—GENERAL TAGGING OF NEW TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENTS; GENERAL TAGGING OF CROSSSECTIONAL TECHNOLOGIES SPANNING OVER SEVERAL SECTIONS OF THE IPC; TECHNICAL SUBJECTS COVERED BY FORMER USPC CROSSREFERENCE ART COLLECTIONS [XRACs] AND DIGESTS
 Y02—TECHNOLOGIES OR APPLICATIONS FOR MITIGATION OR ADAPTATION AGAINST CLIMATE CHANGE
 Y02T—CLIMATE CHANGE MITIGATION TECHNOLOGIES RELATED TO TRANSPORTATION
 Y02T10/00—Road transport of goods or passengers
 Y02T10/10—Internal combustion engine [ICE] based vehicles
 Y02T10/18—Varying inlet or exhaust valve operating characteristics
Abstract
Description
This Application is a divisional of application Ser. No. 08/882,945 filed Jun. 26, 1997, now U.S. Pat. No. 6,208,497.
1. Field of the Invention
The present invention relates to systems and methods for controlling the movement of mechanical devices. More particularly, the present invention relates to the servo control of electromagnetic devices. Still more particularly, the present invention relates to the servo control of solenoids using the measurement of position and the approximation of position of the solenoid's armature to regulate movement of that armature. The present invention may be used in a variety of areas where lifting and/or propulsion is desired with minimum energy consumption.
2. Description of the Prior Art
A solenoid is a linear motor, inherently capable of efficient conversion of electrical to mechanical energy. In rotary motors, experience teaches that large size flavors efficiency, and for a given size motor, the highest efficiency is obtainer when there are very close clearances between stator and rotor parts and when operation is at high RPMs. Electrically speaking, a high frequency of magnetic reversals translates into a high rate of transfer of electromagnetic power. At low frequencies, resistive power losses wipe out efficiencies, while at constant magnitudes of peak magnetic flux, higher frequency translates into higher power transfer without significant increase in I^{2}R resistive power loss. To avoid the eddy current losses associated with high frequency magnetic fields, rotary motors employ laminations in magnetic steels, or highresistivity ferrite parts. Steels have a large advantage over ferrites at moderately low frequencies (particularly below 1 KHz) in their ability to handle flux densities up to about 2 Teslas, compared to ferrites at up to about 0.5 Teslas. The 4to1 advantage in flux density translates into a 16to1 advantage in energy density and magnetic force. Translating the rotary motor rules into the realm of solenoids, one can expect that efficient operation is fast operation. A fast solenoid must have a low shuttle mass, or alternatively, shuttle inertia may be cancelled by resonating its mass with a spring at the design operating frequency (as is done, e.g., in tuned magnetic vibrators for aquarium diaphragm pumps and barber clippers). As the counterpart of close clearances in rotary motors, solenoids operate efficiently at very short operating strokes, relying on high force and high frequency of operation to raise the power/weight ratio. Short strokes are effective only if, at the end of a power stroke, the entire magnetic circuit closes with minimal air gaps—a matter of efficient design. For a solenoid shuttle in nonresonant operation, a short stroke translates into a short stroke time, amounting to operation at high frequency and a high rate of change of magnetic flux, “Φ,” as the magnetic gap closes. A high rate of change of flux, i.e., a large “dΦ/dt,” translates into a high induced magnetic voltage in relation to resistive voltage. Induced voltage represents conversion between electrical and mechanical energy, while resistive voltage represents energy loss, so a large “dΦ/dt” translates into high efficiency.
There are and will always be solenoids designed for utilitarian binary control operations, e.g., unlocking the downstairs front door: contexts where power efficiency is of minor importance and stroke length is a matter of feasibility and convenience, rather than a matter of efficient motor design. Magnetic steel solenoid parts are typically solid rather than laminated, because eddy current losses in dynamic operation are not a design consideration. Moving from the context of infrequent operation of a door latch to the very frequent operation or a print wire driver in a dot matrix print head, repetitive impact and consequent work hardening of the magnetic steel in a solenoid becomes a serious consideration. Magnetic materials for solenoids should ideally exhibit a low coercive force, i.e. a low inherent resistance to change in magnetic flux. In magnetic steels, low coercive force correlates with a large crystalline structure, attained through high temperature annealing to allow growth of large crystals. Annealed steels are mechanically soft and ductile, and their lowcoerciveforce property is described as magnetically soft. Repetitive stress and shock break up large crystals in steel, yielding a finer grain structure that is mechanically workhardened and magnetically harder. Permanent magnets are optimized for high coercive force, or high magnetic hardness: the ability to retain magnetization against external influences. In solenoids, the mechanical work hardening of the steel takes place in a strong magnetizing field, leaving permanent magnetism in the solenoid circuit. The result is to cause the solenoid to stick in its closed position after external current is removed. This is a failure mode for print wire solenoids. A standard approach to keep solenoid parts from sticking is to cushion the landing at full closure, leaving an unclosed magnetic gap, typically through the thickness of the cushion material. This residual gap generates resistance to residual flux after power removal, reducing the tendency of the shuttle to stick closed. Residual magnetic gaps compromise efficiency in two ways: because the most efficient part of the magnetic stroke is approaching full gap closure, where the ratio of force to electric power dissipation is high, and because currents for maintaining extended closure must be made substantially higher to overcome the magnetic resistance of gaps.
Prior art techniques for servo control of solenoid motion and, more generally, magnetic actuation, are summarized well in the introductory section of U.S. Pat. No. 5,467,244, issued to Jayawant et al: “The relative position of the object is the separation or gap between the control electromagnet and the object being controlled and in prior art systems is monitored by a transducer forming part of the control signal generator for the feedback loop. Such transducers have included devices which are photocells (detecting the interruption of a light beam by movement of the object); magnetic (comprising a gap flux density measurement, e.g. Hall plate); inductive (e.g. employing two coils in a Maxwell bridge which is in balance when the inductance of the coils is equal); I/B detectors (in which the ratio of the electromagnet coil current and magnetic flux is determined to provide a measure of the gap between electromagnet and object; for small disturbances the division may be replaced by a subtraction); and capacitative (employing an oscillator circuit whose output frequency varies with suspension gap).” Dick (U.S. Pat. No. 3,671,814) teaches magnetic sensing with a Hall sensor. In the succeeding description of “Apparatus for the Electromagnetic Control of the Suspension of an Object” Jayawant et al derive, from a generalized nonlinear electromagnetic model, a linearized small perturbation model for use in magnetic suspension of an object in the vicinity of a fixed target position. Specifically, they make use of what they call “I/B detectors” (see above quote) wherein the ratio of current “I” divided by magnetic field strength “B” provides an approximately linear measure of the magnetic gap. In text to follow, the ratio “I/Φ” will be used in preference to “I/B” since inductive voltage measurements lead to a determination of the total flux “Φ” rather than a local flux density “B.” Specifically, as noted by Jayawant et al, the time derivative “n·dΦ/dt” equals the voltage electromagnetically induced in a winding of n turns linked by the magnetic flux “Φ.” Thus, time integration of the voltage induced in a coil yields a measure of the variation in “Φ” and additional direct measurement or indirect inference of “I” leads to a determination of the ratio “I/Φ” used to close the servo loop. Where electrical frequency is substantially higher than the frequency associated with solenoid mechanical motion, the ratio “I/Φ” is also the ratio of the time derivatives “(dI/dt)/(dΦ/dt),” so that a measurement of the high frequency change in current slope “dI/dt,” divided by the corresponding measured change in induced voltage across n windings, “V=n·dΦ/dt,” again leads to a measure of position. One recognizes, in this latter ratio measurement, a measure of the inductance of a solenoid. It is well known that inductance can be measured by determining the natural frequency of an LC resonator having a known capacitance “C,” a technique identified in the final part of the quotation from Jayawant et al, above. By either ratio technique, i.e. involving either a time integral of induced voltage or a time derivative or current, one determines position without the use of sensors apart from means to extract measures or current and induced voltage from the coil or coils employed as part of the actuation device. While these relationships are needed building blocks in the conception of the instant invention, they are not an adequate basis for a servo system generating large mechanical motions and correspondingly large changes in solenoid inductance. First, there are limitations to the linearized smallperturbation models taught by Jayawant et al for controlling large solenoid motions. Second, dynamic stability problems would remain even with a more complicated and costly servo implementation using nonlinear circuit models, e.g., computing position as the ratio of current/flux and force as the square of flux, instead of Jayawant's tangential linear approximations of the ratio and square law relations. Where solenoid control is based on driving a winding with a voltage V in order to control a position X, the system to be controlled is fundamentally thirdorder, involving a nonlinear first order system to get from voltage to change in magnetic force (since voltage controls the first derivative of current in an inductive solenoid, and current change generates force change without significant delay), coupled to a second order system to make the two hops force to change in velocity and from velocity to change in position. It is understood that servo control over a third order system is prone to instability since phase shifts around the control loop, tending toward 270 degrees at high frequencies, readily exceed 180 degrees over the bandwidth for which control is desired. Phaselead compensation as taught by Jayawant et al adds 90 degrees of phase margin, bringing at best marginal stability to an efficient electromechanical system. If electromagnetic efficiency is very low, so that resistance R dominates over inductive impedance ωL up to the servo control bandwidth of ω, then the third order nature of the system is not manifest where gain exceeds unity, and phaselead compensation provides an ample stability margin. An example of such a lowefficiency system is found in Applicant's “Bearingless UltrasoundSweep Rotor” system (U.S. Pat. No. 5,635,784), where a combination of extreme miniaturization and lack of a soft ferromagnetic core places the transition from resistive to inductive behavior well into the kilohertz range. For the efficient actuation systems taught in the instant invention, the transition from resistive to inductive impedance can fall below 100 Hz. “Tight” servo control implies a relatively high loop gain over the bandwidth of significant mechanical response, implying a loop gainbandwidth product well in excess of the bandwidth of significant mechanical response. A combination of high efficiency and tight control spell problems for loop stability, for even with singlepole phase lead compensation, minor resonances, e.g., from mechanical flexure, can throw the servo system into oscillation.
While Jayawant et al describe closedloop servo control techniques applicable where perturbations in position from a fixed target position are small, Wieloch (U.S. Pat. No. 5,406,440) describes an openloop control technique for reducing impact and mechanical bounce in solenoids used in electrical contactors. Prior art actuation had consisted of instantaneously applying to the solenoid winding the full voltage needed to close the contacts under all operating conditions, taking into account manufacturing variations in the spring preload holding the contacts open. The fixed actuation voltage was usually well in excess of the minimum requirement, and the result was actuation with excessive force and resulting severe contact bounce. Wieloch teaches to ramp the solenoid current up slowly so that when the magnetic force is just sufficient to overcome spring preload force and initiate motion, there will be little additional increase in average actuation voltage before the solenoid stroke is complete. Efficient current ramping is accomplished via a switching regulator, which applies a steadily increasing voltage duty cycle to the solenoid winding while winding current recirculates through a diode during intervals between driving voltage pulses. At a sufficiently high switching frequency, the inductance of the solenoid effectively smoothes the current waveform into a ramp. Similar switching regulation is found in preferred embodiments of the instant invention, but with greater control in order to overcome limitations in Wieloch's soft landing design. When a solenoid begins to close, the resulting “back EMF” due to armature motion tends to reduce electric current, in relation to gap, to maintain a constant magnetic flux, with the result that increases in force with gap closure are only moderate. (The simplified model of Jayawant et al, equation 9, implies no change at all for force as a function of gap closure at constant magnetic flux. In the specification below, Eq. 42 corresponds to equation 9 except for the slope function “dx_{eff}/dx,” which Jayawant takes to be unity and which departs significantly from unity for moderate to large magnetic gaps, as indicated, e.g., in the approximate formulation of Eq. 20 of the following specification.) If a constant average voltage is applied to the winding (e.g., via constant duty cycle voltage switching at high frequency) and current begins to decrease with gap closure, then the currentlimiting effect of resistance is reduced as current is reduced, so that the magnetic flux begins to rise. This can lead to an acceleration of a solenoid armature toward impact at full closure, depending on inductive time constants, mechanical inertia, and spring rate. Even under conditions where sufficiently soft landing is achieved, it is at the cost of a substantial excess energy consumption to generate a long ramp of pulse duty cycle and current, only the middle portion of which causes actuation. Adaptive adjustment of a pulse width or a pulse duty cycle during solenoid closure will be shown (below) to achieve soft landing under variable conditions with nearly the minimum net expenditure of electrical energy dictated by the given operating conditions.
Hurley et al (U.S. Pat. No. 5,546,268) teach an adaptive control device that regulates electric current to follow a predetermined function of the measured solenoid gap, in order to achieve a predetermined pull curve of the electromagnet. Though such a system responds to some of the limitations of Wieloch, it is not readily adaptable to an actuation system that must respond to changing conditions of starting position and the load force curve while achieving quiet, impactfree, efficient operation.
Both for controllability and energy efficiency, some solenoids have been designed with a region of operation in which stator and armature components have closely spaced parallel surfaces and the armature moves inplane through a region of changing overlap, yielding a region of relatively constant actuation force at constant current. Eilertsen (U.S. Pat. No. 4,578,604) teaches such a geometry in a dualcoil device for linear midrange actuation and a strong holding force at either end of the actuation stroke. Rotary actuation designs accomplish similar linearity properties using rotary overlap of parallel magnetic plates. The touchdown region where magnetic parts close in contact is commonly avoided in servo control contexts. Magnetic characteristics in this region have presumably been considered too nonlinear for practical control. In particular, the region of operation approaching full closure and contact of mating magnetic surfaces presents a very steeply changing inductance and correspondingly steep change in the sensitivity of force to change in coil current. For a solenoid operated below core saturation, the variation in magnetic force “F” with coil current “I” and magnetic gap “x” is described approximately by the proportionality “F∝(I/z)^{2}.” When the gap in a solenoid reaches mechanical closure, the “x” denominator in this proportionality goes nearly to zero, implying a nearly singular relationship between the control variables and the resulting magnetic force. Interpreting published families of static force/stroke/voltage curves exhibiting approximately this proportionality equation, the engineer is likely to conclude that a position servo control loop becomes unmanageably nonlinear over wide actuation ranges or on approach to full magnetic closure of the solenoid. As evidence of the prevalence of this assumption,
Holding currents or drive voltages for solenoids are commonly set well below the peak currents or voltages needed to get a solenoid moving toward closure. Both drive and holding signal levels must, in open loop systems, be set high enough to insure closure followed by holding under all conditions, including variability in manufacture from unit to unit, including variability of power supply source (e.g., utility line voltage), and including variability in the mechanical load. Closed loop solenoid control offers a way to reduce both drive and holding signals to minimum practical levels. Yet problems with stability and nonlinearity inherent to magnetically soft ferromagneticcore solenoids have impeded the development of servo solenoids, and therefore have prevented the potential efficiency advantages just described.
Solenoids have the potential for operating characteristics now associated with efficient motors: quiet impactfree operation, very frequent or continuous motion, and high efficiency at converting electrical energy to mechanical work. Reciprocating power from electricity is traditionally derived from a rotating motor and a cam or crank shaft, yet solenoids have been demonstrated, in the instant invention, to deliver reciprocating power at high efficiency, provided that the solenoid is designed to operate fast, in order to generate rapid changes of magnetic flux in its windings. In many reciprocating power applications, a solenoid with sophisticated control can offer greater simplicity and substantially tighter control than is achieved with a rotary motor and rotarytoreciprocating motion conversion device. In the realm of control and sensing of external processes via a solenoid, the invention to be disclosed below can be configured to operate as a controller of position and simultaneous sensor of force, or as a controller of force and simultaneous sensor of position, or in an intermediate mode as a source of mechanical actuation with electrically controlled mechanical impedance characteristics, especially of restoration and damping. With rotary motors, such control has involved the use, e.g., of stepper motors used in conjunction with torque or force transducers, or of nonstepper motors used in conjunction with rotary position encoders and possibly torque or force transducers. The following specification will show a solenoid operated as the linear motor to drive a highefficiency reciprocating pump, while two additional solenoids control the pump's inlet and outlet valves. All three solenoids operate silently and efficiently under servo control. This new system goes beyond objectives described and claimed in Applicant's U.S. Pat. No. 5,624,409, “VariablePulse Dynamic Fluid Flow Controller,” a system using valve solenoid actuators that are mechanically similar to the ones described below and that achieve volumetric flow regulation from a pressurized fluid source over a very wide dynamic range of pulse volumes and rates. The system described below replaces the volume measurement device of Applicant's earlier invention with a solenoid that provides active pumping actuation in addition to fluid volume measurement, inferred from the position of the solenoid pump actuator, where that position is determined from measurement of the resonant frequency of the solenoid drive winding with a capacitor.
An object of the invention is control of the powered closure of a solenoid to eliminate closure impact and associated noise, efficiency loss, and progressive damage, including damage to the properties of the magnetic materials. Related objects are to eliminate closure impact through two strategies: a lowcost strategy called “launch control;” and a feedback strategy called “servo control.” A further object is to employ servo control for dynamically maintaining a solenoid position in a hovering or levitating mode. A still further object is to employ servo control for smooth opening of a solenoid.
Within “launch control” an object is to infer, from current signals and/or induced voltage signals, a parameter to be compared to a threshold function for determining, dynamically, a time to terminate a launch pulse, such that the solenoid gap closes approximately to a target value short of full closure and short of impact.
Within mechanical “servo control,” common terminology describes a sense parameter; indicating mechanical response of a servo system; a target parameter to be subtracted from the sense parameter and resulting in an error parameter; PID gain parameters describing three aspects of feedback amplification of the error parameter, namely: Proportional feedback; Integral feedback; and Derivative feedback, and a drive parameter arising from the summation of the P, I, and D feedback components and that determines the actuation output causing the controlled mechanical response. A servo control loop is characterized by a settling time constant, which may be defined by the shortest time interval beyond which an error parameter continues to be reduced by at least a specified ratio below an initial error defined at the start of the time interval. The settling time constant is generally minimized by an optimum combination of proportional and derivative feedback gains. Increasing of the integral feedback gain generally improves long term error reduction while increasing the settling time constant, thus degrading short term settling and, for excessive integral feedback gain, causing instability and oscillation of the servo system.
Within this descriptive framework, in the context of sense parameters for servo control, and where the magnetic gap of the solenoid is identified in the instant invention as the parameter to be sensed and controlled, an object is to employ a measure of solenoid current as a sense parameter of the servo loop. It is a related object to exploit the direct electromagnetic interaction between magnetic gap and solenoid current that inclines solenoid current to vary, in the short term and neglecting external influences, in approximate proportion to magnetic gap. It is a further related object to exploit the relationship demanding that, when a servo control loop causes electromagnetic force to balance against a mechanical load force, the result is to establish a solenoid current that necessarily varies in approximate proportion to magnetic gap. Given that, within the context of ongoing servo control, solenoid current is caused to vary in approximate proportion to magnetic gap, both in the short term due to the physics of the electromagnetic interaction, and in a longer term due to the forcebalancing properties of the servo loop, it is an object to employ solenoid current as a sense parameter indicative of solenoid magnetic gap, including for servo control.
In an alternative embodiment of servo control employing an alternative sense parameter, the actuation output of the servo system is the output of a switching amplifier, which causes the voltage differential across a solenoid coil to switch between two known values with a controlled duty cycle, resulting first in duty cycle control over the coil current as averaged over one or more switching cycles, and resulting second in a measured AC fluctuation of the time derivative of current in the solenoid coil. That AC fluctuation varies monotonically and consistently with the magnetic gap of the solenoid, providing a repeatable measure of that gap. An object, therefore, in a solenoid system driven by a switching amplifier with duty cycle control, is to employ the measured AC fluctuation in current slope as a sense parameter of the servo controller.
Total magnetic flux through the solenoid and coils, designated Φ, is a valuable controller parameter related to magnetic force and to determination of magnetic gap, i.e. position. An object of the invention is to determine variation in magnetic flux in a controller by integration of the voltage induced in a coil linked by the solenoid flux. A further related object is to determine absolute flux by initializing the flux integral to zero for an open magnetic gap and when solenoid current is zero. A further related object is to determine induced voltage in the solenoid drive winding by subtracting an estimate of resistive coil voltage from the total voltage across the coil. A still further related object is to measure induced voltage in an auxiliary sense winding, coaxial with and electrically separate from the drive winding.
In the context of related drive parameters, sense parameters, and target parameters for servo control, an object is to split a solenoid control servo system functionally into coupled inner and outer loops with distinct drive, sense, and target parameters, and such that the inner loop has a substantially shorter settling time constant than the outer loop. A related object is to establish an outer control loop for which the sense parameter is a measure of position and the drive parameter is a signal related to force. The sensed measure of position may be a solenoid current, or a measured AC variation in a solenoid current slope, or an auxiliary measurement of mechanical position, e.g., via a hall effect sensor and permanent magnet or an optical sensor and a light source. A further related object is to establish an inner control loop for which the sense parameter is a measure of variation in magnetic flux, and for which the drive parameter of the outer loop defines at least an additive component of the target parameter being compared with the sensed measure of magnetic flux, and for which the drive parameter is a coildrive voltage. Note that this drive voltage is the actuation output ultimately controlling mechanical motion in the solenoid. A still further related object is to establish an efficient voltage switching oscillation in an amplifier driving a solenoid coil, and to cause the duty cycle of that switching oscillation to vary such that the shorttermaverage voltage driving the coil is the voltage drive parameter of the inner loop. As a way of simplifying the electronic design of the servo system, an objected related to the establishment of a switching oscillation with a controlled duty cycle is to design a controller loop with an intentional shortterm instability that gives rise to switching oscillations having the desired characteristics.
We recognize that, over periods substantially longer than the time constant defined by the solenoid inductance/resistance ratio L/R, the average voltage applied to a solenoid coil determines the coil current, while inductive effects are “forgotten.” We further recognize that the Integral component of PID feedback control is sensitive only to comparatively persistent or long term trends in the input error signal. From these recognitions, it follows that it is possible to substitute voltage or duty cycle for sensed current in the integral component of a PID feedback controller, with similar longterm results, even though settling characteristics will differ. An object is therefore to design controllers based on integral feedback whose sense variable may be drive current or drive voltage or drive duty cycle. For any of these choices of sense variable, the equilibrium magnetic gap established by servo control is dependent on a combination of mechanical load force and the controller target for the sense variable in the integral loop, i.e. the target for current or voltage or duty cycle. In any of these cases, an object of the invention is a controlled solenoid able to pull to near closure and hold there with a practical minimum of electric power. This can be accomplished by setting the bias for zero rateofintegration at a signal level that is determined in advance to be sufficient to hold the solenoid at a finite gap.
The solenoid of the instant invention can include permanent magnet material, so incorporated that a needed range for holding force is obtained, at zero drive coil current, over a corresponding useful range of the solenoid gap. In such a permanent magnetincorporating embodiment, an object is to set the bias for zero rateofintegration at or near zero drive coil current, so that except for power transients to compensate for perturbations from equilibrium, the control system achieves solenoid holding with vanishingly small drive power. With or without the inclusion of a permanent magnet, the moving element of the solenoid may be freefloating, in which case an object of the invention is to achieve stable electromagnetic levitation of a freefloating magnetic element. A further related object is to achieve levitation with a minimum of actuation power.
In controlling substantial currents to a solenoid winding, there are difficulties and disadvantages to incorporation of a currentsense resistor and associated differential amplification, including the difficulty of having to sense across a resistor whose common mode voltage swing travels outside the power supply range, and including the disadvantage of added power dissipation in the currentsense resistor. The differential voltage output provided by an isolated fluxsense winding, wound coaxial with the power drive winding, carries all the information necessary for the dynamic determination of both current “I” and magnetic flux “Φ” when such a sense winding is used in conjunction with a switching mode drive. It is therefore an object of the invention to employ a sense winding for the determination of both coil current and magnetic flux in a switching mode solenoid controller.
From sense coil information, one can derive either the “integral ratio” designated “I/Φ” or the “derivative ratio” designated “(dI/dt)/(dΦ/dt),” or the “derivative difference ratio” designated “Δ(dI/dt)/Δ(dΦ/dt),” any of these three ratios being a measure effective magnetic gap and therefore a measure of position, for servo control. The integral ratio depends on a determination of absolute flux, as mentioned above and as feasible when the flux integral, as defined by integration of all induced voltage, can be initialized under known zeroflux conditions, e.g. zero for an open magnetic gap and a winding current of zero. A further limitation to absolute flux determination is integration drift, which introduces errors in an absolute flux determination if too much time elapses after initialization. Another disadvantage of the integral ratio is the requirement for division. In some embodiments of the instant invention, effective especially for servo control as the magnetic gap approaches close to zero and magnetic flux approaches a constant value that generates a force approaching balance with a constant load force, the denominator of the integral ratio is approximated as a constant, resulting in the use of current “I” as a sense parameter. This approximation fails, leading to all unstable control loop, under conditions of excessive loop gain or for excessively large magnetic gaps. A more robust controller therefore avoids the constant denominator approximation of the integral ratio and either computes the true integral ratio, or makes use of the derivative difference ratio, or makes use of a direct measure of position via an auxiliary sensor. In a switching regulator context, the denominator of the derivative difference ratio, namely Δ(dΦ/dt), is equal to 1/n times the peaktopeak voltage swing of the switching amplifier output, where “n” is the number of turns in the drive winding. Thus, for a constant drive voltage swing, the denominator of the derivative difference ratio is constant, and the numerator varies in direct proportion to effective magnetic gap. An object, therefore, is to achieve a more robust controller, less prone to instability, by using an accurate measure of either the effective magnetic gap or the true geometric position as the sense parameter of the outer control loop. A related object is to use the ratio of current divided by flux, I/Φ, as the sense parameter for the outer control loop. An alternative related object in a voltage switching servo is to use the peaktopeak current slope amplitude, “Δ(dI/dt),” or an approximate measure of this current slope amplitude, as the sense parameter of the outer control loop. For operation of a solenoid approaching full magnetic closure, the sawtooth current waveform resulting from a switching voltage drive becomes very unsymmetric, with short steep rises in current (when a drive voltage is applied) followed by much more gradual decreases in current where current is impeded by only a small resistive voltage and a small drop across a diode or onstate transistor. In this situation, the peaktopeak current slope amplitude is well approximated by the positivegoing current slope designated “İ>0” where the much smaller negative current slope going into the difference “Δ(dI/dt)” is neglected.
In controller contexts where sensing and servo control of true mechanical solenoid position is required over extended periods, where the timeintegral determination of total magnetic flux will be prone to drift, effective magnetic gap “X” is determined without drift in a switching regulator context by the relation “X=K·Δ(dI/dt)” as described above, and magnetic force “F” is well approximated in relation to current “I” by the equation “F=K2·(I/X)^{2}” An object of the invention is therefore to construct a servo controller driving a solenoid drive winding with a switching amplifier and utilizing the oscillatory amplitude of current slope, or the positivegoing current slope, as a driftfree measure of magnetic gap X. A related object is to use the square of the ratio of current to magnetic gap, (I/X)^{2}, as a measure of electromagnetic force. In an oscillatory feedback loop, only the sign of an inequality involving nonlinear variables need be determined in order to define the switching amplifier output as high or low at a given instant. Such an inequality involving ratios of variables and powers of variables is readily computed in an analog controller as an inequality involving logarithms of electronic variables, those logarithms arising from the inherent logarithmic voltage/current characteristics of semiconductor diodes or bipolar transistors. An object of the invention is therefore to design an oscillating servo controller circuit with output voltage switching based on the sign of an inequality involving logarithmic signals. A related object is to define a position sense parameter as an oscillatory amplitude of current slope. A further related object is to define a magnetic force as the square or the ratio of solenoid current divided by a position sense parameter. A still further related object is to employ a comparator circuit and logarithmic transistors to determine the sign of an inequality involving the logarithm of an oscillatory amplitude of current slope and the logarithm of current.
In systems applications of a servo controlled solenoid, it is sometimes useful to use the solenoid as a precision measurement device, where position of the solenoid armature correlates with a system parameter to be determined, e.g., fluid volume. When a solenoid is designed for good performance in a servo system, e.g., by employing a powder metal or ferrite core to avoid eddy currents that otherwise confuse electromagnetic measurements, and/or by including a flux sense winding in addition to the drive winding, then the solenoid becomes more useful and accurate as a position measurement device. As mentioned above, position, as related to effective magnetic gap, can be measured using any of the three ratios of current over flux, namely the integral ratio, the derivative ratio, or the derivative difference ratio. Yet another way to measure effective magnetic gap and infer position is by measurement of the resonance frequency of a solenoid winding coupled to a capacitor. Since the solenoid is capable of exerting a selectable or variable force while measuring position, it can therefore be used for the quantitative measurement of mechanical compliance. In a fluidmoving system employing solenoid actuation, measurement of position can be used to measure volume, and measurement of mechanical compliance can be used to measure fluid volume compliance, e.g., as an indication and quantitative measure of bubbles present in a substantially incompressible liquid. An object of the invention is therefore to make double use of a solenoid as an actuator and as a position measurement sensor. A related object is to use a solenoid to measure mechanical compliance. A related object in a fluid moving system is to make double use of a solenoid for pumping and fluid volume measurement. A further related object in a fluid moving system is to use a solenoid to measure fluid volume compliance, including as an indication and quantitative measure of bubbles in a liquid.
In an application of the invention for developing a sustained magnetic closure force for holding or magnetic bearing or magnetic levitation functions, an object is to combine permanent magnet materials with soft magnetic materials to generate a passive force bias, whereby the controller generates output drive currents that fluctuate about a zero average to correct for deviations from an unstable equilibrium point where steady magnetic force is derived entirely from the bias of the permanent magnet material. A related object is adaptively to seek out the levitating position for which the electric drive current required to hold velocity to zero is a zero drive current, and where nonzero drive current signals are integrated to generate a cumulative bias correction that drives the system toward the balance position calling for zero drive current.
In an application of the invention to magnetic levitation and propulsion of a monorail car, an object is to control multiple magnetic lifting modules in a common mode for regulating height of levitation, in a differential mode for regulating tilt, and in a variablegain traveling wave mode for generating thrust through engagement of traveling magnetic waves with periodic ripples in a track. A related object for minimizing hysteresis and eddy current losses in a track is to generate lifting forces of magnetic attraction from magnetic fields directed mostly vertically and laterally relative to a longitudinal direction of motion, thereby generating magnetic flux in the track that remains relatively constant during the period of passage of a levitating car. A related object for minimizing lifting power is to combine permanent and soft magnetic materials for generating lift with a reduced or zeroaverage current to electromagnetic lifting modules.
The parameter X defined by X=I/Φ, for solenoid primary winding current I and total flux Φ linking that winding, is called effective magnetic gap and varies approximately in proportion to the geometric gap of a solenoid with a flatended pole piece. This effective gap X is used in various solenoid servo controller embodiments, having theadvantage of derivation from coil measurements without recourse to auxiliary sensors (e.g., optical encoders or hall effect devices.) The induced voltage Vi in a winding of n turns is given by Vi=n(dΦ/dt), so time integration of induced voltage yields a measure of variation in Φ. For controllers starting with an open magnetic gap and zero solenoid current, the initial flux is zero, so integration of Vi from a zero initial condition at zero initial flux yields an absolute measure of Φ. Vi in turn can be measured as the voltage differential across a solenoid drive winding, subtracting out the resistive voltage component IR for current I and winding resistance R. Alternatively, Vi can be measured directly from a sense winding wound coaxial with the drive winding, without need to subtract out a resistive voltage. Thus, effective gap X can be determined from a measurement of current and the integral of measurements of induced voltage, starting from an initial condition of zero. In the important situation where a solenoid is converging under servo control to rest at a nearzero value of gap X, where magnetic force is balancing a mechanical load that approaches a limiting force as gap X approaches its final, small value, then flux Φ, the primary determinant of magnetic force, must necessarily approach a constant Φ as gap X closes to its final value. Under these circumstances, a controller can be based on the approximation that I/Φ≅I/Φ_{0}, so that the determination of flux and the division operation are both eliminated. An alternative approach to determination of effective gap X is based on AC inductance measurements, using the relation X=n/L for inductance L in n windings. For precision measurements of X, appropriate for static or slowly changing X, a solenoid winding can be resonated against a capacitor C, measuring the resonant frequency, and solving mathematically for X. Resonance determination methods include: “pinging” with a transient excitatory pulse and monitoring of the ringing frequency; oscillation of a regenerative feedback loop involving the LC resonator; and phaselock loop techniques. For determination of X in a servo circuit where a switching amplifier drives the solenoid winding with a variable duty cycle, the peaktopeak switching drive voltage, ΔV, is related to the peaktopeak change in current slope, Δ(dI/dt), by reciprocal inductance, which in turn is related to X. When ΔV is a constant pulse amplitude, then Δ(dI/dt) varies in linear proportion to X. In the important limit where gap X is approaching smoothly to a small final value, then the drive voltage pulses are becoming comparatively narrow, resistive voltage drop in the drive coil is becoming a small fraction of the onstate drive voltage, and the difference Δ(dI/dt) is approximated by the value dI/dt sampled when the drive voltage is on and the magnitude of I is increasing: a technique illustrated in
A servo control loop for operation of a solenoid includes a relatively slow outer loop for regulating magnetic force in order to control the sense parameter X, and a much faster inner loop to vary average output voltage in order to satisfy the force demand of the outer loop. More specifically, magnetic force varies approximately as the square of magnetic flux, i.e. Φ^{2}, more or less independent of gap X. For the small fractional perturbations in total force that arise when a solenoid with a spring load converges to a target value of gap X, force is described by a constant plus a linear term in flux Φ. Thus, the input sense parameter of the inner loop is X, and the output is Φ, which controls force. This output is the input target parameter of the inner loop, whose output is typically duty cycle from a switching amplifier. Duty cycle drives current, which controls Φ, the flux that is sensed at the input of the inner loop and compared to the target flux dictated by the outer loop. Flux also controls the magnetic force that causes variation in acceleration of the position parameter X, closing the secondorder outer loop. X is compared to an externallyprovided target, X_{0}, to yield the error signal of the outer control loop. Typically this error signal is processed by a linear transfer function whose output is characterized by the three gain terms of traditional PID control: a Proportional, a time Integral term, and a time Derivative term. The weighted sum of the P, I, and D terms, plus a bias constant corresponding to an estimate of Φ_{0}, the flux expected at final equilibrium, yields the target flux from the outer loop to the inner loop.
This hierarchy of interacting loops with different speeds splits an inherently difficulttocontrol, nonlinear third order controller into a second order linear controller (the outer loop) and a first order nonlinear controller (the inner loop). The rate behavior of the inner loop is approximately linear, since flux Φ is controlled by average output voltage V (averaged over variablewidth pulses) and the controlling physical equation is V=n(dΦ/dt), a linear first order equation. The nonlinearity resides in a variable offset or inhomogeneous term, IR, the component of voltage necessary for current I to overcome ohmic resistance R and maintain the current required to produce flux Φ. This inhomogeneous term in the linear controller loop varies more or less in linear proportion to X for constant force, and nonlinearly with respect to required variations in magnetic force. In effect, the inner firstorder control loop must respond to a timevarying input target and to a nonlinear timevarying voltage offset in its output (due to resistive voltage drop) in order to drive its input error to zero. Hence, a difficult nonlinear third order controller problem issegmented first by speed, to solve a first order equation rapidly and reduce the remaining control problem from third to second order, and second by confining nonlinearity to the simpler firstorder loop, where nonlinearity appears as an innocuous variable offset term.
Means for measuring or determining the position parameter X were discussed above. Also mentioned was determination of flux Φ from integration of a measured induced voltage, either directly from a sense winding or with correction for resistive voltage drop from a drive winding. Where control of force is concerned, it is not necessary that the estimation of flux Φ be free from offset or drift with respect to time. The integral component of a PID control loop automatically corrects for offset and gradual drift in the estimation of flux. The control loop may also be designed so that the integration from induced voltage to flux, and from position error to the integral term of the PID controller signal, takes place in the same integrator, whose output is a sum of terms made immune to drift by the action of corrective feedback through the entire servo loop. In controller configurations where estimates of position X include linear terms in both current I and flux Φ, the integral component of the PID loop may be based not on X, but on a correlate of X at equilibrium. For example, for a known range of static weight and/or spring forces at a holding value of X near zero, i.e. hovering at a negligibly small gap after impactfree solenoid closure, both the steady voltage and the steady current required to keep X in the required small range can be determined in advance. The integral control loop uses as its input, therefore, not X, but the voltage or current determined by the faster proportional and derivative components of the control loop. If the steady gap is “wrong” then the operating current and voltage will be offtarget. Specifically, if the current and voltage are too high, relative to the target, this indicates that the magnetic gap X is too large, causing an excessive current demand to drive magnetic flux across the gap. Thus, paradoxically, the integral controller must gradually demand still more current, to drive X to a smaller value, so that less current is demanded. The magnetic force at constant current is destabilizing, with a smaller gap giving a greater force to close the gap more. The integral control loop is “unstable” or, specifically, regenerative, responding to an excess current with a rate of increase in current. The regenerative control loop interacts with the destabilizing magnetic property of the gap to give a stable closed loop behavior, as the product of two negative stabilities yields a positive stability.
A solenoid adapted for servo control based on sensed electromagnetic parameters is also well adapted for use as a position sensor, based on determination of the reciprocal of inductance, a parameter that is a wellbehaved monotonic indicator of solenoid gap. Position sensing is employed in a pumping system for determination of pumped liquid volume and for quantitative determination of air bubbles present in a pumped liquid, as inferred from changes in solenoid position with changes in electromagnetic force.
In steady lifting and levitation applications, permanent magnet materials are combined with soft magnetic materials to generate a lifting bias force at zero cost in steady coil power. The principles of servo control and efficient switchingregulator drive taught elsewhere in this Specification are readily adapted to operation with a permanent field bias and to stabilization of an otherwise inherently unstable permanentmagnet suspension system. These principles are extended to levitation and tilt control in a levitated monorail car, whose propulsion is generated by a perturbation in the lifting magnets to generate traveling waves of magnetic field strength that are synchronized to the passage of ripples in the track.
In another application of the invention, where realtime closedloop servo control is not required, knowledge of the known characteristics of the system is embodied in coefficients of a “launch control” apparatus and method, whose goal is to compute, in advance of launch, a preprogrammed sequence of pulses predetermined starting times and widths, designed to move the solenoid armature, or shuttle, quickly and with a nearminimum of electrical energy consumption, from a starting position to a target finishing position. In systems contemplated here, this pulse sequence begins (and possibly ends) with a single launch pulse of duration designed to bring the solenoid armature to a stop at a target position. If that position is near magnetic closure but short of full closure and an impact click, and if the solenoid is to be held closed electromagnetically, then a pulse sequence follows to gently pull the armature the remaining distance to fill gap closure, followed by pulse train at reduced duty cycle to maintain closure. In situations where the starting position is variable or otherwise unknown to the system software before launch time, then the initial position is measured either by electronically connecting a capacitor to a solenoid winding and using one of the resonance methods described earlier in this section, or by using a “probe pulse” from the solenoid driver to provide data adequate to compute a ratio of current/flux, “I/Φ).” The resonant frequency or the current/flux ratio thus determined is used to compute the previously unknown initial position or, more to the point, the parameters necessary to define a launch pulse duration. If the mechanical characteristics of the solenoid and load are well enough known in advance, then the prelaunch data alone is applied to an empirical formula describing the pulse width that will be required. There may be corrective adjustment for measured power supply voltage, as well as for power supply impedance based on measurements from recent launches (which is a significant issue for operation from an unregulated battery supply whose voltage and impedance will change as the battery is progressively discharged.)
If the unknown characteristics of the system include parameters that are not readily determined in advance of a launch, e.g., when an unknown effective preload force must be overcome to initiate motion of the solenoid armature from its initial position, then the launch control method includes an onthefly correction to the launch pulse duration. In a specific application of the launch controller to pumping with a solenoiddriven piston stroke, the effective preload force is affected by an unknown fluid pressure. Since the pressure is isolated from the solenoid by a valve (passive or active) that remains closed until roughly the moment in launch when the solenoid armature starts to move, the solenoid controller can obtain no advance knowledge of the preload forces that will affect launch. The effect of the preload force will first manifest itself to the system sensors as an advance or delay in progress toward gap closure. This progress is most readily observed in the waveform of current drawn by the solenoid during the launch pulse. Before the armature begins to move, the current waveform will describe an exponential decay from zero upward toward a resistive upper limit of current. Acceleration of the armature toward closure will rapidly curtail and reverse the upward trend in current. At any given instant, the value of current will be less than, equal to, or greater than a predetermined threshold function of time. When the sensed current waveform crosses the threshold function, the drive pulse is terminated and the solenoid coasts to its target. The shape of the threshold function is determined, in advance, to cause the desired outcome, which is generally to have the solenoid armature come to a halt slightly short of full closure and impact. When the armature is expected to have stopped, a pullin pulse train may be applied to close the remaining gap, or valve closure may prevent the armature from falling back. A comparable threshold function may be defined for another sensed parameter, e.g., the output voltage from a sense winding. The sensitivity of the sense function to incipient armature motion may be enhanced by including time derivative terms of sensed current of induced voltage. In any case, a motionsensitive sense parameter is compared to a threshold function of time, and the crossing of the parameter and the function causes launch pulse termination at a time predetermined to send the armature to the vicinity of a target.
Implementation of the invention summarized above relies on specific quantitative models of solenoid electromechanical dynamics. While parts of these models are to be found scattered among textbooks, the material to follow pulls together the mathematical and formula relationships necessary for the detailed implementation of the apparatus and methods taught. Following a list of the drawings, we begin with fundamental relationships and move forward to applied formulas.
The mathematical formulas to be derived will be based on a few simplifying assumptions that, in engineering practice, are sometimes realized. It turns out that these assumptions are best realized for a new class of electromagnetic solenoid designs that are optimized for soft landing, as well as for options of twopoint and fourpoint landing control (to be described later). It is difficult to measure electronic parameters adequate for servo control from a solenoid that has a low electromechanical efficiency. It will be seen that transformergrade ferrites can be used in constructing fastacting, energyconserving, quiet solenoids whose electromagnetic characteristics are virtually “transparent” to a dynamic controller, yielding highquality measures of mechanical position and velocity. The mating faces of existing designs for pot cores, EE and EI cores, UU and UI cores, are very well adapted for employing these components as electromechanical solenoid parts. The conductivity of iron in conventional solenoids permits eddy currents, which effectively limit the bandwidth for valid determination of position and velocity, as well as the bandwidth for quick closure through the inefficient region near fullopen magnetic gap. Core fabrication from sintered powdered iron substantially overcomes these conductivity problems. Poor closure of the flux path further complicates electronic inference of position and velocity for feedback control, while simultaneously compromising electromechanical efficiency. Separating out these issues, then, there are three important assumptions whose relative validity affects both the validity of the mathematical derivations to follow, and the stability and precision achievable (or even go/nogo feasibility) in a soft landing servo system or launch control system:
1) For fixed shuttle position, solenoid behaves like a linear inductor.
Discussion: This is to validate the textbook inductor energy formula E=½I^{2}L. It is well known that ferromagnetic core materials are highly nonlinear, but when a small air gap is incorporated into an inductor design, its performance becomes very linear until the core material is pushed well up along its saturation curve. What is happening is that the air gap has a linear B vs H relationship, and the magnetic reluctance of the air gap dominates the total reluctance of the magnetic circuit. Commercial solenoids approximate linear inductors for all shuttle positions, except when pushing the maximum limits of force, since there is always enough effective air gap in the magnetic loop to wipe out core nonlinearity except in deep saturation at maximum forces. If a solenoid is designed intentionally for a very small effective gap when the shuttle is pulled in, e.g., to minimize holding current, then the equations to be shown below may be slightly inaccurate for the last few percent of travel before full closure of the solenoid gap.
2) Solenoid has no memory, so magnetic energy “now”=function of electric current “now”.
Discussion: Two phenomena might invalidate this assumption: magnetic hysteresis, and eddy currents. Referring to assumption #1, concerning nonlinearity, the magnitudes of hysteresis effects are generally smaller than effects of saturation for solenoids operating at comparatively high flux densities (as is inevitable if a solenoid is reasonably compact for the mechanical energy of its stroke). Thus, air gaps wipe out hysteresis effects in a similar way to wiping out nonlinearity effects, resulting is comparatively “memoryfree” magnetic performance. If eddy currents are of sufficient magnitude, they will partially cancel the effect of current flowing into the solenoid leads in a timedependent manner. The magnetic energy is a function of all currents, including eddy currents. At low frequencies, where magnetic skin depths are larger than the dimensions of conductive solenoid parts, the time constant for dissipation of eddy currents will be shorter than the time constant for change in drive current, and there will be little eddy current buildup. At high frequencies, with shrinking magnetic skin depths, material at skin depth or deeper will be shielded from the coil fields and thus effectively removed from the magnetic circuit, causing degraded performance and poor correlation with the mathematical model to follow. Ferrite solenoids will be effectively immune to eddy current effects.
3) The distribution of magnetic flux linking the winding does not change with solenoid position.
Discussion: In the derivations below, magnetic flux is treated as a simple scalar quantity with respect to inductance and backEMF, as if the same flux links every turn in the winding. If the flux distribution is nonuniform, some turns get more flux than others, but the analysis is still valid for being based on an “effective” number of turns, so long as that number is constant. If the flux distribution through the windings changes significantly when the shuttle position changes and alters the magnetic gap, then the effective number of turns could change, violating the modeling assumptions. Furthermore, in designs that employ separate windings for generating and sensing magnetic flux, there may be a somewhat variable relationship between actuation and sensing as flux patterns in space change with changing shuttle position. There will inevitably be some gapdependent redistribution of flux in the coil or coils, causing minor error in the mathematical model and in the control relationships between drive and sense windings. These issues are believed to be of minor practical importance in a controller context where, for most of the flight path of a solenoid shuttle, only very approximate control is required. As the shuttle approaches the position of full magnetic closure, more precise control of the flight path is required to achieve soft landing, but in that region near magnetic closure, virtually all magnetic flux will be confined in the core material, totally linking drive and sense windings. Deep core saturation will cause greater magnitudes of flux redistribution, introducing error into the analysis for certain operating conditions that push the envelope of solenoid operation.
The derivation of the following formulas may be explained by a gedanken experiment: Assume that the solenoid winding is of superconducting wire, so that mathematically we ignore the effects of electrical resistance, which can be reintroduced separately, later. Imagine that, with the solenoid shuttle position fixed, voltage is applied until the current “I” reaches a Specified level, at which time the total magnetic energy in the solenoid is
E _{mgn}=½I ^{2} L for magnetic energy “E_{mgn},” current “I,” and inductance “L.” 1]
This is the textbook formula for a linear inductor. Now, short the superconducting winding, allowing current to continue circulating with no external connection that would add or remove electrical energy. Theory says that a superconducting surface is an impenetrable barrier to changes in magnetic flux, since induced currents at zero resistance will prevent the flux change. By extension, a superconducting closed loop or shorted winding is an impenetrable barrier against change in the total flux linking the loop, for if flux starts to change incrementally, the flux change will induce a current change in the superconductor that cancels the flux change. With no electrical energy entering or leaving the system through the wires, the sum of magnetic field energy plus mechanical energy must remain constant. Imagine that the solenoid shuttle pulls on an ideal spring that just balances the magnetic force “F” acting on the shuttle. We assume sufficiently slow motions that there is negligible kinetic energy and negligible acceleration force, so that magnetic force matches spring force in magnitude. We define “x” as the coordinate of the solenoid shuttle, such that an increase in “x” corresponds to an increase in the magnetic gap. We will conveniently define “x=0” as the position of full magnetic closure, giving maximum inductance. Magnetic force “F” pulls to close the magnetic gap and reduce “x,” while the equal but opposite spring force pulls to open the magnetic gap and increase “x.” We define “F” as a negative quantity, tending to reduce “x” and close the gap. If the shuttle moves a positive infinitesimal distance “dx,” the spring does work to pull the solenoid more open, so the spring loses energy. Defining “E_{mch}” as mechanical spring energy, and given a negative magnetic force “F” balanced by an equal but opposite spring force, a positive travel “dx” result in a negative change in mechanical energy:
dE _{mch} =F·dx for mechanical energy “E_{mch},” force “F,” distance increment “dx.” 2]
When a total magnetic flux Φ links n turns of a solenoid coil, voltage across the coil has two expressions:
V _{L} ,=L(dI/dt) inductive voltage “V _{L}” from inductance and current change with time “t” 3]
V _{L} =n(dΦ/dt) inductive voltage from turns number “n” and change of flux “Φ” with time 4]
Setting the right hand terms of Eqs. 3 and 4 equal to each other and integrating with respect to time yields:
I·L=nΦ different expressions for “momentum” of inductor in voltseconds 5]
Assuming a superconductive shorted winding is equivalent to assuming V_{L}=0, in which case Eq. 4 implies that the flux Φ is constant over time:
Φ=Φ_{0 }flux is constant through time for shorted superconductive winding 6]
With Eq. 6, Eq. 5 implies the constancy of the product I·L through time:
I·L=I _{0} ·L _{0 }for constant reference values I _{0 }and L _{0}, assuming V _{L}=0 7]
For this special shorted winding condition, substituting Eq. 7 into Eq. 1:
E _{mgn}=½I(I _{0} L _{0}) Assuming V _{L}=0 8]
Under these conditions, the differential in magnetic energy from Eq. 8 is:
dE _{mgn}=½(I _{0} L _{0})dI assuming V _{L}=0 9]
With no electrical power entering or leaving the system, the sum of magnetic plus mechanical spring energy is a constant, which means the sum of the differentials is zero:
dE _{mch} +dE _{mgn}=0 10]
Substituting in Eq. 10 from Eqs. 2 and 9:
F·dx+½(I _{0} L _{0})dI=0 11]
Dividing through by the differential in distance, dx, in Eq. 11, and rearranging yields:
F=½I _{0} L _{0}(dI/dx) 12]
Using Eq. 7, we drop the subscripts from “I” and “L” in Eq. 12:
F=½IL(dI/dx) 13]
Differentiating both sides of Eq. 7 with respect to x yields the expression:
L(dI/dx)+l(Dl/dx)=0 14]
Solving for dl/dx in Eq. 14 and substituting this expression in Eq. 13 yields:
F=½I ^{2}(dL/dx) 15]
Observe that “L” is a decreasing function of “x,” so that “F” and “dL/dx” are both negative. Inductance is high when the magnetic gap is closed, so that a small current produces a large magnetic flux. Eq. 15 is based on conservation of energy with an equilibrium force balance and a zeroresistance coil. The expression has general validity, however, under more complicated conditions. Taking the total derivative of Eq. I with respect to “x” yields:
dE _{mgn} /dx= ½I ^{2}(dL/dx)+IL(dI/dx) 16]
Solving Eq. 14 for “dI/dx” in terms of “dL/dx” and substituting into the second term of Eq. 16 gives a negative contribution of “−I^{2}(dL/dx),” twice the size of the positive term, yielding:
dEmgn/dx=½I ^{2}(dL/dx) 17]
Substitution from Eq. 15 now yields:
dE _{mgn} /dx=−F 18]
This serves as a consistency check. Force is negative, or attractive, in a solenoid, always tending to close the magnetic gap and drive positive “x” toward zero, so “−F” is positive. Eq. 18 therefore indicates that total magnetic energy in a solenoid with a shorted superconducting coil is an increasing function of gap. A spring pulling the gap open does work, which is transformed into magnetic energy. Inductance is reduced with increasing gap, but current is increased to keep the product of current and inductance, “IL,” constant (recalling Eq. 7). With constant “IL,” the energy product “½I^{2}L=½I(IL)” is dynamically linear with current “I” and undergoes a net increase with increasing gap. Going in the opposite direction, if the magnetic circuit in a solenoid becomes a virtual “short circuit” at full gap closure, meaning that there are no air gaps to be bridged by magnetic flux and the relative permeability of the magnetic material is very high (figures of 1000 to 100,000 are common), then both current “I” and the energy product “½I^{2}L” are driven dynamically to nearzero as the gap closes. This is true not only for the idealized case of a solenoid with a shorted superconducting winding initialized at some current before shorting, but for a real coil with electrical resistance and an applied drive voltage. Focusing attention not on voltage and current and changing inductance, but rather on the net magnetic flux, “Φ,” that travels through the magnetic circuit, then for a solenoid gap approaching zero, magnetic force is more or less linear with the square of flux, “Φ^{2}” There is a natural “inertia” resisting changes in “Φ,” namely, the tendency for changes in “Φ” to generate compensatory changes in coil current and, in conductive magnetic materials, compensatory transient eddy currents. Thus, the combination of resistive voltage drop and coil drive voltage generates a time rate of change of flux, “dΦ/dt,” but not an instantaneous response in “Φ.”
Solenoid manufacturers typically publish families of curves showing force as a function of magnetic gap for various coil voltages. These curves bend steeply upward as the gap goes to zero, their slopes being limited at high coil voltages by magnetic saturation. It is common for the magnetic circuits in solenoids to include a significant nonclosing net air gap, usually residing partly across an annulus between stator iron and the shuttle, and partly across a cushion or minimum air gap maintained at the end of the shuttle, e.g., by a mechanical stop located away from the critical site of magnetic closure. Experience has shown that allowing uncushioned magnetic parts to impact together generates noise, shock, and some combination of surface damage, work hardening, and magnetic hardening of the material near the impact site. Magnetic hardening results in retention of a permanent magnetic field after the solenoid current is removed, and sticking of the shuttle in its fullclosed position. Eliminating air gaps and pushing the design toward full closure of the magnetic flux loop would seem to invite problems of uncontrollable dynamics and a worsening singularity where force tends toward infinity as the gap closes. These appearances are deceptive, being based on steady state relationships among voltage, gap, and force. Dynamically, as a magnetic solenoid gap closes, flux and force tend not to change rapidly, and solenoid current tends to be driven toward zero with closing gap because the solenoid naturally resists abrupt change in total magnetic flux.
The alternative to mechanical prevention of impacting closure of a magnetic gap is dynamic electronic control, taking advantage of inherently favorable dynamic properties of the system and employing servo feedback to avoid impact. The optimum physical design of a solenoid changes substantially in light of the possibilities for dynamic electronic control. If there is full magnetic closure, then the point of full mechanical closure becomes virtually identical (typically within tenths or hundredths of a millimeter) with the point of zero magnetic reluctance, so that the target for a zeroimpact soft landing controller is readily and consistently identified. With full closure, the holding current needed to keep a solenoid closed under mechanical load becomes almost vanishingly small. If parts mate too well, there can be problems of sticking due to residual magnetic flux at zero coil current, even with undamaged, magnetically soft materials. If needed, a little AC wiggle to the coil current will reliably unstick the shuttle—a function that needs to be automated in the controller implementation. Expanding on a previous statement of definition, the combined strategies of electromagnetic design, including fluxsensing coils as well as drive coils, and including coordinated electromagnetic, mechanical, and electronic design (including analog and digital software parameters) are collectively called “soft landing.” Related to soft landing, as mentioned, are the strategies and designs for twopoint landing and fourpoint landing, which may optionally be combined with soft landing to achieve good electromechanical performance within a simplified and errortolerant mechanical design.
Eqs. 19 and 20 give an approximate model for inductance “L” as a function of gap “x.”
L=μ _{0} n ^{2} A/x _{eff} 19]
Eqs. 19a, 19b, 19c, and 19d, easily derived from Eq. 19, are included here for completeness. Solving first for the effective magnetic gap in terms of inductance:
xeff=μ _{0} n ^{2} A//L 19a]
If inductance “L” is determined from measurement of a resonant frequency,
ω=2πf 19b]
for measured frequency “f” in Hz giving “ω” in seconds^{−I}, where the unknown “L” is resonated with a known capacitance “C”, then recalling the basic resonance formula,
ω^{2}=1/LC 19c]
it follows from Eqs. 19a and 19c that:
x _{eff=μ} _{0} n ^{2} Aω ^{2} C 19d]
Eq. 19 is the formula for inductance with a “pillbox” magnetic field, where the magnetic circuit has no magnetic resistance except across a space between parallel circular plates of area “A” and spaced by the distance “x_{eff}.” The turns count is “n” and the permeability of the gap volume is μ_{0}. The formula is based on a hypothetical magnetic field that is constrained not to spread out in the space between the plates, but instead is confined to a cylindrical path (e.g., as if by a superconducting cylinder). In a realizable situation, the performance of an actual gap “x” between parallel surfaces of a magnetic conductor approaches the ideal the assymptotic limit of a small gap, i.e., “x_{eff}/x→1” as “x→0,” in which limit the field lines become parallel except for a shrinking “bulge” region around the area perimeter, where the width of the bulge shrinks in proportion to the height “x.” As the gap widens, the field spreads out over a larger effective area than the actual area of the parallel plates, thus causing the inductancedetermining ratio “A/x_{eff}” to exceed the physical ratio “A/x.” This is modeled not by increasing the area “A” in the formula, but instead by reducing “x_{eff}” to a value smaller than the actual gap “x as in approximate Eq. 20:
X _{eff}=(x _{0} /K)(1−1/1/(1+(x+x _{min})/x _{0})^{K}) approximately 20]
The inverse of Eq. 20 is also useful:
x=x 0·((1/1−K·x _{eff} /x _{0})1/K)−1)−x_{min }approximately 20a]
Given electrical measurements to determine either inductance “L” or the radian frequency “ω” that resonates with a known capacitance “C”, then Eq. 19a (from “L”) or 19d (from “ω”) yields a value for “x_{eff}” whose substitution into Eq. 20a yield the geometric gap “x”. Discussion is provided later for dynamic determination of inductance “L” from timeintegration of a magneticallyinduced voltage, and for determination of “ω” from ringing measured in a driver/sensor circuit.
When actual “x” goes to zero, there is some residual resistance (specifically: reluctance) to the magnetic circuit, associated with small air gaps, with imperfect mating of the stator and shuttle where they close together, and with the large but finite permeability of the ferromagnetic material in the flux path. This resistance is equivalent to a small residual air gap x_{min}. Eq. 20 is designed so that the parameter “x_{eff}” is asymptotic to the sum “x+x_{min}” as that term goes to zero. As gap “x” increases, “x_{eff}” begins to increase more slowly than “x,” at first due to the spreading of the magnetic field over an increased effective area. As the solenoid shuttle is further removed, flux begins to bridge across gaps in the solenoid structure until, when the shuttle is completely removed, i.e. as “x→∞,” there remains a finite effective distance that magnetic flux must span, jumping between magnetic surfaces with no help from the permeability of the shuttle. This asymptotic limit is “x_{0}/K.” This limit is unimportant to the practical modeling of a solenoid, since the shuttle in a practical solenoid is only operated over a limited range of travel. What is important is that the scaling parameters “x_{min},” “x_{0},” and “K” be adjusted for the best fit to empirically measured inductance over the intended range of travel for the variable. “x.” Once this data fit is performed for a particular shape of magnetic core and shuttle, the results are readily extrapolated to other sizes having the same shape. The exponent “K” will be a characteristic of the shape. The length scaling parameter x_{0}, is some fraction of a specific dimension of the assembly. For example, for a typical shape of pot core, with one half serving as the stator and the other half serving as the shuttle, a good fit is obtained by setting K=1.5 and x_{0}=16D) where “D” is the diameter of the center pole piece. The value for x_{min }depends strongly on how accurately the surfaces mate, but for a tested pot core with an outside diameter of 50 mm, the ratio x_{min}=0.01x_{0 }was obtained. The practical result is that the minimum effective gap is quite close to zero.
A valuable approximate formula for force is derived from substituting from Eqs. 19 and 20 into force Eq. 15. First expanding Eq. 15 in terms of “x_{eff}”.
F=½I ^{2}(dL/dx _{eff})(dx _{eff} /dx) 21]
Differentiating Eq. 19 gives an expression for the first derivative term of Eq. 21:
F=−½I ^{2}(L/x _{eff})(dx _{eff} /dx) 22]
Differentiating Eq. 20 gives an approximation for the last term of Eq. 22:
F=½I ^{2}(L/x _{eff})(1/(1+(x+x _{min})/x _{0})^{K+1}) approximately 23]
Expanding “L” from Eq. 19 in Eq. 23:
F=−½I ^{2}(μ_{0} n ^{2} A/x _{eff}2)(1/(1+(x+x _{min})/x _{0})^{K+1}) approximately 24]
In is not useful to show further expansion of Eq. 24, since no simplifications arise to boil the expanded result down to a simpler formula. Since “x_{eff}” is asymptotic to “(x+x_{min})” for small values, and since the last term in Eq. 24 approaches unity for small values of (x+x_{min}), Eq. 25 is an asymptotic approximation to Eq. 24:
F=−½I ^{2}μ_{0} n ^{2} A/(x+x _{min})^{2 }approximately 25]
Not obvious without numerical computation is that Eq. 25 is a surprisingly good approximation of Eq. 24 over the entire range of the nondimensional distance parameter “(x+x_{min})/x_{0}” that is likely to be useful in engineering computation. For K=1.5, Eq. 25 overestimates Eq. 24 by just over 5% when the nondimensional distance parameter “(x+x_{min})/x_{0}” reaches 1.0, and by just over 1.7% for the distance parameter at 0.5. Noticing that in designs that close the magnetic circuit tightly, “x_{min }is a small fraction of the useful range of “x” we can write an even simpler approximate expression that aids in seeing important physical relationships:
F=−½I ^{2}μ_{0} n ^{2} A/x ^{2 }approximately 26]
Dissipation of power in a solenoid coil is I^{2}R for resistance “R.” Force is linear with power dissipation. Force is also linear with pole face area. If a solenoid is scaled up in size while retaining the same number of turns, “n,” and adjusting the wire gauge to fit the larger space, then the increased crosssection of the wire outpaces the increase in winding length, so that resistance varies inversely as the linear dimension “D” of the solenoid. The effect of reduced resistance reinforces the efficiency advantage of increased area as scale is increased. The increase of solenoid mass with size reduces the efficiency advantage in a configuration that uses a much reduced holding current after solenoid closure, because the greater mass of a larger solenoid tends to make it respond more slowly and require more time in the inefficient wideopen range. What is especially apparent is the reciprocal square of solenoid gap in the denominator of Eq. 24. The ratio of force/power is much more favorable for small gaps, and small gaps will be closed more quickly, meaning that reduction to a holding current occurs more quickly. These considerations are summarized in the proportionalities expressed by Eqs. 27 through 27c, based on Eq. 26 (complete derivation not provided here). Eq. 27 describes, for a specified output of mechanical Energy per stroke, “E_{s},” how the Power dissipated in electrical resistance, “P_{d},” varies as a function of the stroke length “x” and of a characteristic linear dimension “D0” (e.g., the diameter of a pole piece):
P _{d} ∝x·E _{s} /D ^{3 }proportionality based on approximate Eq. 26 27]
Energy per stroke “E_{s},” is defined for tills derivation as the force “F” developed at gap to x” multiplied by that gap, i.e. “F·x,” though the same proportionality holds true if “F” varies as a function of the stroke going from “x” to zero in such a way that the shape of the force curve is maintained with resealing of “F” and “x” such that the ratio of actual stroke energy “E_{s}” to the product “F·x” is maintained constant.
Moving from rate of power dissipation to net energy to accomplish a stroke, if the acceleration of the shuttle is limited by the mass “M” of that shuttle, and if proportional scaling of the moving part is maintained so that “M” varies in proportion to the cube of the characteristic dimension “D,” i.e. M∝D^{3}, then one obtains a stroke time “t_{s}” whose proportionality to the parameters of the system is expressed by:
t _{s} ∝x√{square root over (D ^{ 3 } /E _{ s } )} 27a]
Under the circumstances where solenoid inertia is the limiting factor for stroke time, such that Eq. 27a is valid, then the Energy dissipated in electrical resistance, “E_{d},” varies in proportion to the product “P_{d}·t_{s},” as shown in the following equation:
E ^{d} ∝x ^{2} √{square root over (E _{ s } /D ^{ 3 } )} absolute loss, acceleration limited by solenoid mass 27b]
Eq. 27c expresses the same proportionality as a loss ratio:
E _{d} /E _{s} ∝x ^{2} /√{square root over (E _{ s } ·D _{ 3 } )} loss ratio, acceleration limited by solenoid mass 27c]
Since mass “M” varies as “D^{3}” we can rewrite Eqs. 27b and 27c in terms of “M”:
E _{d} ∝x ^{2} √{square root over (E _{ s } /M)} absolute loss, acceleration limited by “ M” 28]
E _{d} /E _{s} ∝x ^{2} /√{square root over (E _{ s } ·M)} loss ratio, acceleration limited by “ M” 28a]
If a solenoid drives a load through a lever that provides some ratio of mechanical advantage or disadvantage, so that solenoid stroke length “X” may be varied at will in a design while maintaining a constant curve of force versus stroke position at the load side of the lever, and if the solenoid mass is the limiting factor for acceleration, then the above formulas for “E_{d}” apply. If the mass on the load side of the lever is predominant in limiting acceleration, then Eq. 27a is invalid, stroke time “t” becomes more or less a constant, and stroke energy becomes proportional to that constant stroke time “t” multiplied by “P_{d}” of Eq. 27. Many real world designs will lie somewhere between the proportionalities for “P_{d}” and for “E_{d}.” The situation where solenoid inertia is ratelimiting places a higher efficiency, premium on reduced stroke length, whereas the situation where the load is ratelimiting places a lesser premium on reduced stroke length and a higher premium on increased solenoid size, expressed either by a characteristic dimension “D” or a characteristic mass “M.” In either case, these formulas make it clear that to obtain work from a solenoid at high efficiency, and provided that it is feasible to trade off reduced stroke for increased force at constant stroke energy, then there is a strong advantage to keeping the stroke length as short as possible. For a fixed size of solenoid, this implies driving the solenoid to achieve the largest possible force. Force varies as “B^{2},” the square of the field strength at the pole faces, and saturation of the core material of the solenoid places a constraint on the maximum magnitude of field strength “B.” Optimization by reduction of stroke “x” and increase of force “F” to maintain a constant energy product “F·x” at constant dimension “D” will obviously drive the magnitude of “B” upward until saturation becomes a limiting factor in the design. One thus encounters a boundary to the application of the above equations for optimization. Working at the saturation boundary, there is an advantage to increasing solenoid size and poleface area, which at constant stroke energy allows one to reduce stroke “x” inversely as the square of dimension “D,” thus keeping the swept stroke volume “x·D^{2}” constant. In this case, x^{2}∝1/D^{4}, and 1/D^{4 }is multiplied by 1/D^{1.5 }from the denominator of Eq. 27b or 27c to yield a net scaling of dissipated energy as the power law 1/D^{5.5 }for the solenoidinertialimited case. Similar considerations lead from Eq. 27 to a dissipated energy power law 1/D^{5.0 }where stroke time is loadlimited. Under all the circumstances described above, there is a strong efficiency advantage in using a big solenoid with a short stroke for a task requiring a given stroke energy, where this is feasible. When one reaches a minimum practical stroke, e.g., because of dimensional tolerances, then further increases in solenoid size at a fixed stroke “x” yield much more marginal efficiency returns. Diminishing returns of a different sort are encountered in a solenoid is so efficient as a motor that dissipated energy “E_{d}” is no longer large compared to stroke energy “E_{s},” an operating region where efficiency is so high that there is little net energy to be saved by further efficiency improvement. This happy situation is seldom realized in practice.
It is well known that metallic iron and magnetic steel alloys have a substantially higher saturation Bfield than ferrites, e.g., about 2.0 Teslas for iron as against about 0.5 Teslas for ferrites, roughly a 4to1 advantage. This translates into roughly a 16to1 advantage for maximum force at a given size, e.g., a maximum characteristic dimension “D.” Maximization of force, however, is quite different from maximization of efficiency. Eqs. 27 through 28a imply an efficiency advantage to making a solenoid larger than the minimum size dictated by core saturation. Where efficiency optimization drives the Solenoid size large enough that saturation will not occur in a ferrite core, then ferrite has the advantage of lower density than iron, implying a quicker stroke. While magnetic core hysteresis loss is a major consideration in transformer design, hysteresis is a very minor issue in solenoid designs, since the magnetic reluctance of the air gap is predominant in controlling the relationship between winding ampereturns and the field strength that determines force. Thus, sintered powdered iron cores, which are cheaper but more lossy than ferrites in high frequency transformers, perform about as well as ferrites in solenoids at low flux densities while providing a substantially higher saturation field. In the servo control and measurement strategies to be described below, based on measurements of the voltages electromagnetically induced in solenoid windings, the electrical conductivity of solid iron or steel solenoid parts can present substantial problems for accurate determination of solenoid position. These problems are overcome to some degree with higherresistivity powder metal cores and even more with ferrite cores. Where extremely high acceleration is demanded in a solenoid core, e.g. in moving an automotive engine valve through a prescribed stroke in a time period constrained by high engine RPMs, then iron or powder metal solenoid parts will accelerate faster than ferrite parts due to the higher achievable flux density.
The above proportionality optimization equations are based on constant shape of the solenoid pole pieces. When varying taper of the pole faces enters the optimization process, this adds considerable complication to the analysis. For a given size of solenoid and a given stroke energy requirement, use of tapered pole pieces confers little advantage or disadvantage (the particulars depending strongly on the pattern of saturation of inductor material) except where constraints demand a long stroke, in which case tapered pole pieces can offer some advantage. There is some advantage to shaping a solenoid so that most of the magnetic flux path is in the stator, to minimize shuttle mass and thereby minimize the duration of a stroke. Solenoids whose shuttles are cylinders many diameters in length are at a disadvantage for mass minimization. This patent specification will disclose some flatter solenoid geometries that help maximize gap area, minimize moving mass, and in some contexts simplify the task of guiding the motion of the solenoid shuttle, avoiding the traditional bushing design that can suffer from wear problems in highduty applications.
In deriving Eqs. 1 through 26, we conceptually prevented dissipative electrical energy transfer by assuming a resistancefree, shorted coil, thus simplifying the physics. The derivation of Eqs. 27 through 28a, not shown completely above, introduced electrical resistance. The following derivations conceptually permit exchange of electrical energy with the magnetic circuit via coil current and the combination of externally applied voltage and internal voltage drop due to resistance. The inductive voltage of Eq. 4, which promotes change in coil current, is provided by an external drive voltage from which is subtracted a resistive voltage loss:
V _{1} =V _{ext}−1·R 29]
The resistive voltage drop “I·R” neglects skin effect, which is usually negligible in coil windings at frequencies for which it is possible to overcome the mechanical inertia of a solenoid shuttle and induce significant motion. Skin effect may be significant in metallic alloys of iron and nickel (the primary ferromagnetic components of solenoids), cobalt (the more expensive ferromagnetic element, less likely to find use in solenoids), chromium (an antirust alloying component), and the other trace elements commonly appearing in solenoid alloys. Ferrites do not share this problem. High magnetic permeability in a conductive material has the effect of reducing skin depth very substantially, so that skin currents in the shuttle and stator components of a solenoid can transiently shield underlying magnetic material from a coil field and reduce the dynamic response of the solenoid. Reiterating caution number 2 under “SOLENOID PHYSICS AS APPLIED TO THE INVENTION,” the performance analysis that follows will, for some geometries and materials, be overly optimistic concerning the speed of solenoid response and concerning applicability of the methods being derived here for servo control. This author and a colleague have measured solenoids in which change of inductance with shuttle position is dramatic and readily observed over a broad band of frequencies, and other solenoids in which impedance is almost purely resistive in and below the audio frequency band, with shuttlepositionindicating changes in the inductive component of impedance being detectable only with effort at sorting out inphase and quadraturephase impedance components. Solenoids in the latter category are not good candidates for the kind of control described herein.
Eq.7, indicating the constancy of the product “I·L,” implies a formula for the partial derivative of current with respect to inductance when x varies. To get the total derivative of current with respect to time, we need to consider the partial derivative with time associated with inductance L and voltage V_{L}, plus the partial derivative of current with inductance multiplied by the change of inductance with time:
dI/dt=∂I/∂t=∂I/∂L·dL/dt 30]
The partial derivative of current time is the effect of applied voltage, the familiar expressed for fixed inductances:
∂I/∂t=V _{L} /L 31]
The partial derivative of current with inductance is derived from Eq. 7:
∂I/∂L=−I/L 32]
Substituting Eqs. 31 and 32 into Eq. 30 yields:
dI/dt=V _{L} /L−(I/L)(dL/dt) 33]
Expanding V_{L }according to Eq. 29:
dI/dt=(V _{ext} −I·R)/L−(I/L)(dL/dt) 34]
A finite difference expression equivalent to Eq. 34 as time increment “dt” approaches zero suggests an approach for numerical integration:
I _{n+1} =I _{n}(Ln/L _{n+1})+dt·(V _{ext} −I·R)/L 35]
Our mathematical description is almost sufficient to simulate the response of a solenoid, so that the understanding gained can be used to design the analog circuit operations and digital methods of a working controller. Eq. 15, defining force as a function of current and inductance, will be needed, as will Eqs. 19 and 20, defining inductance as a function of gap “x,” plus either Eq. 34 or 35 to simulate the changing electric current, and finally an equation for shuttle acceleration, including a description of the mechanical load. One load description is incorporated into Eq. 36, which describes the acceleration of a shuttle of mass “M” driven by magnetic force “F′” and by a spring having linear spring rate “K1” and biased from an unstressed shuttle position “x_{1}” to the actual present shuttle position, “x:”
d ^{2} x/dt ^{2}=(F+K1(x _{1} −x))/M 36]
Having developed the tools to model the motion of a solenoid, we require something in addition to exert servo control for soft landing: a method for measuring or inferring shuttle position. An obvious approach taken in past art is to provide an extra transducer to serve solely as a position sensor. It is feasible, however, to infer shuttle position, or a useful smoothlyvarying monotonic function of shuttle position, from inductance measurement or inference from related parameters. The parameter “x_{eff}” appearing in Eq. 19, and approximated by Eq. 20 as a function of “x,” may be inferred with reasonable accuracy from measurement of the electrical response in solenoid windings. For achieving soft landing, it is not necessary to transform “x_{eff}” into the linear Cartesian coordinate “x.” The only advantage of such a transformation is to obtain a position variable for which the effective value of mass “M,” e.g., in Eq. 28, is a constant. In the nonlinear coordinate “x_{eff},” the effective mass will vary somewhat, altering the equations of motion but not preventing a control method from functioning to bring a solenoid shuttle to a target position and land it with a low velocity at contact.
A pair of readily determined parameters to define “x_{eff}” consist of total magnetic flux “Φ” and coil current “I.” Recalling Eqs. 3, 4, and 5, inductive voltage V_{L }is related to both inductance and flux. These equations are based on a fixed inductance, but Eq. 4 is valid even for timevarying inductance, being based on the fundamental relationship between voltage and magnetic flux cutting across a conductor. Eq. 5 also has general validity, allowing one to solve for inductance “L” when current “I” and flux “Φ” are known, including when “L” varies with time. To determine Φ during the operation of a solenoid, one has a reference point when the solenoid gap is fully opened and no current is flowing: Φ=0. Residual magnetism in the solenoid core material will have a negligible effect for a material with low coercive force and in the presence of a large air gap. External magnetic fields will be insignificant compared to the magnitudes of normal operation. The most straightforward way to determine “Φ” dynamically through time is with all auxiliary sense winding in parallel with the solenoid drive winding. In this way, resistive voltage drop in the drive coil will be of no consequence, and the voltage obtained from the sense winding will be a good measure of the time derivative of flux. Thus parameter can be integrated, starting from an initialization value of zero, either by analog integration or periodic sampling of the sense voltage and cumulative summation of the sampled values. Either the analog integral or the cumulative sum can be scaled to give a useful measure of “Φ.” The other needed control parameter is “I,” the current that together with inductance “L” sets “Φ.” A current sense resistor is an obvious approach. Now solving Eq. 5 for reciprocal inductance:
1/L=I/nΦ 37]
The reciprocal of “L” is linear with “xeff.” Incorporating the scaling coefficients of Eq. 19 yields:
x _{eff}=μ_{0} nAI/Φ 38]
As already stated, “x_{eff}” is a sufficient parameter to base soft landing control, its nonlinearities with respect to the Cartesian coordinate “x” being of little practical consequence. For a magnetic loop that closes to a very low reluctance, the offset between the mechanical limit of full closure and the zero of “x_{eff}” will be of little consequence. Targeting landing at x_{eff}=0 and approaching zero exponentially will result in landing in a finite time at a very low velocity. If the offset of the mechanical stop is significant, an offset correction can be incorporated into the landing software. Mechanical closure is relatively easy to detect: “x_{eff}” will not become smaller with increase in drive current.
An alternative way to determine “x_{eff}” is to make an AC measurement of inductance “L.” With electronic control of coil voltage and current measurement capability, measuring inductance is a matter of determining the dynamic ratio of voltage variation to rate of change of current. Once the general approach has been identified, an obvious implementation is with a switching regulator to control average current. Specific circuit examples will be given later, while the objective in these paragraphs is to define the conceptual approach. The switching regulator applies DC supply voltage across the solenoid terminals in pulses. Between pulses, a transistor or diode allows current to circulate or “freewheel” through the winding, sustained by inductance and decaying due to resistance. If current needs to be reduced faster than the rate determined by resistance and magnetic effects, a transistor used in the “freewheel” current path can be pulsed off while the power supply transistor is simultaneously off. The inductivelysustained freewheel current will immediately build up a voltage exceeding the DC power supply voltage, and current will flow back into the supply through a diode, thus giving “regenerative braking.” As was shown in Eq. 32, the rate of change of current with time will include a component due to shuttle motion and rate of change of inductance. In solenoids that provide a fairly clean inductance signal at practical regulator switching frequencies, the current waveform will approximate a sawtooth wave responding to voltage switching. The difference in slope between the voltageon and voltageoff conditions can then be divided into the associated voltage swing to yield reciprocal inductance, as summarized in Eq. 39:
I/L=(dI/dt)/V defined by sampling current sawtooth driven by voltage pulses. 39]
As a solenoid approaches gap closure, current is driven to a small value, so that the resistive component of coil voltage becomes a small fraction of the externally applied voltage. If supply voltage is “Vb” and the positive current slope is designated “İ>0” then Eq. 39 is approximated by:
1/L≅(İ>0)/Vb defining reciprocal inductance during voltage pulse at small gap. 39a]
The relationship expressed by Eq. 39a is exploited in the embodiment of the invention illustrated in FIG. 11. Observe the signal waveforms sketched near points in the circuit, including a sawtoothlike current waveform at 1100, a bandlimited inverted current slope waveform labeled “−İ” at 1101, and a sampled peak waveform labeled “İ>0” labeled at 1102 and corresponding to the like term in parentheses in Eq. 39a. Supply voltage Vb is considered constant. Thus, the sampled currentslope waveform is used as a position variable in the servo control loop. Since accuracy in this softlanding circuit is required only on approach to zero gap, the approximation of Eq. 39a is accurate where accuracy is needed.
As the current waveform in the figure suggests, current immediately after the voltage transient may exhibit overshoot before settling into a more linear slope. Overshoot can be caused by eddy currents in transformer steel transiently lowering the effective inductance. The current slopes to subtract for Eq. 39 should be computed from data taken after transient settling, if possible.
Eq. 19 is readily solved for “x_{eff},” using the solution for reciprocal inductance from Eq. 39:
x _{eff}=(1/L)(μ_{0} n ^{2} A) 40]
Eq. 40 is just a rearrangement of Eq. 19a. The value of magnetic flux “Φ” will need to be determined from data to enable computations described below, whether this value is measured by integrating a sense coil output, or by inference from measured current “I” and reciprocal inductance “1/L” either from Eq. 39 based on AC measurements over pulse widths or from Eq. 19c based on ringing frequency measurements involving a known capacitance in the solenoid circuit. In the AC measurement case, “Φ” comes from “I” and “L” most simply from dividing the sides of Eq. 5 by “n”:
Φ=I·L/n 41]
A potential advantage to AC determination of inductance and shuttle position is that the result is valid even if the reference value of flux, Φ, has been lost. This situation could come up where soft landing is used not for magnetic closure, but for slowing the shuttle before it impacts a mechanical stop at fullopen, e.g., in a device that must operate very quietly. If a solenoid has been kept closed for a long period, flux in relation to current could drift, e.g., with heating of the solenoid. Heat can affect both magnetic permeability and the intimacy of mating of magnetic pole faces, whose alignment or misalignment can be affected by mechanical thermal expansion. The ratio of flux to current is sensitive to both permeability change and very small changes in the nearlyclosed magnetic gap. Another more subtle effect is the time dependence of magnetic permeability. It is known that field strength in permanent magnets at constant temperature declines as a function of the logarithm of time over periods from seconds to years. “Soft” ferromagnetic materials have a similar settling behavior under steady magnetomotive force. For soft landing at full open, the “location” of the target in terms of “x_{eff}” should be known fairly accurately, so that velocity can be small when the target is reached, and so that the solenoid does not waste energy “hovering” in a region of high power dissipation and moving slowly to find the target. An AC determination of position does not depend on past history, and for the magnetic circuit approachingfullopen, inductance, is a stable measure of shuttle position, with minimal sensitivity to temperaturesensitive parameters such as core permeability.
A potential disadvantage to AC determination of inductance and position is that in solid metal solenoids (as opposed to ferrite core solenoids or powder metal core solenoids), high frequency inductive behavior is likely to be affected strongly by eddy currents or, to say the same thing, skin effect, which will have the effect of shielding the solenoid winding from the magnetic core, reducing inductance in a frequencydependent manner that can make position determination impractical. Tracking of net magnetic flux will be much less sensitive to skin effect than AC inductance determination, since flux is a cumulative, or integral, parameter with respect to both drive voltage and shuttle velocity. Correlated with flux is current, which again is a cumulative or integral parameter in an inductive system. Flux and current determinations will be comparatively less perturbed by highfrequency skin effect. An added potential advantage of the cumulative parameter approach is reduced computation, in both digital and analog implementations. Where a solenoid exhibits a highQ inductance to well above the frequency of a switching controller, a capacitor may be introduced into the circuit to induce high frequency ringing, in which case the ringing frequency may be determined by waveform sampling or by period measurement using appropriate highpass filtering and a comparator. A sense winding coaxial with the solenoid drive winding provides an easy way to measure either high frequency ringing or a “dΦ/dt” signal for integration to obtain “Φ.”
The derivations so far have concentrated on position measurement. The other significant control issue is to simplify dynamic control of force under dramatically changing conditions of current/force response and voltage/currentslope response. In Eqs. 37 and 38, we found that “L” and “x_{eff}” could both be expressed in terms of “I” and “Φ.” A similar reduction of force is now obtained by substituting for “L” and “x_{eff}” from Eqs. 37 and 38 into Eq, 22:
F=−½(Φ^{2}/μ_{0} A)(dx _{eff} /dx) 42]
Eq. 42 is exact to the extent that the assumptions outlined earlier are fulfilled, concerning linearity, memoryfree response, and consistent flux linkage of the windings. Eq. 38 provides a way to determine, from data, the value of “x_{eff}” at which the derivative “dx_{eff}/dx” is to be evaluated. What is not made explicit is the relationship between gap “x” and the parameter “x_{eff}.” The curve relating “x” to “x_{eff}” depends nontrivially on the detailed geometry of the magnetic circuit and can be derived empirically from inductance measurements as a function of gap “x” for any particular solenoid, using Eq. 40 to translate inductances into values of “x_{eff}.” A useful approximation for Eq. 42 employs the approximate model of Eq. 20, which requires parameter values for “x_{0}” and “K” to flesh out the model:
F=−½(Φ^{2}/μ_{0} A)(1+(x+x _{min})/x _{0})^{K+1}) approximately. 43]
The expression in “x,” “x_{min},” and “x_{0}” on the right of Eq. 43 can be reexpressed in terms of “x_{eff}” using Eq. 20:
1/(1+(x+x _{min})/x _{0})^{K}=1−x _{eff}(K/x _{0}) 44]
Eq. 38 defines “x_{eff}” in terms of measurable parameters in an expression to substitute on the right of Eq. 44:
1/(1+(x+x _{min})/x _{0})^{K}=1−(μ_{0} nAI/Φ)K/x _{0}) 45]
Now rearranging the right hand side of Eq. 45 slightly and substituting that result into the expression on the far right of Eq. 43 yields:
F=−½(Φ^{2}/μ_{0} A)(1−K(μ_{0} nAI/Φ)/x _{0}) approximately. 46]
While Eq. 46 shows that all the data for computing F comes from flux “Φ” and current “I,” it is useful to substitute back in the expression from the right of Eq. 44, rearranged to express a dimensionless ratio of x's:
F=−½(Φ^{2}/μ_{0} A)(1−K(x _{eff} /x _{0})) approximately. 47]
The value for “x_{eff}” comes from data via Eq. 38 or Eq. 40 (depending on the measurement modality), but the expression of Eq. 47 clarifies the dimensional relationships. The expression on the far right of Eq. 47 is a dimensionless magnitude correction for the fluxsquared term on the near right. This magnitude correction is barely less than 1.0 for small magnetic gaps and generally exceeds 0.5 for the largest magnetic gaps that are practical in solenoids. As “x” goes to infinity, i.e. when the solenoid shuttle is completely removed, then the correction factor on the right of Eq. 47 goes to zero as “x_{eff}” approaches its limiting asymptote. For practical control purposes, where the maximum value of “x_{eff}” is confined by the fullopen limit stop on the solenoid shuttle, the correction factor can be ignored, i.e. set to unity, revealing a very simple approximation of force:
F=−½(Φ^{2}/μ_{0} A) asymptotically as x→0. 48]
When magnetic flux is known, force is known approximately, and quite accurately in the gapclosure landing zone. Added information about current yields a correction that makes the force expression accurate everywhere. Concerning wellbehaved control relationships, recall Eq. 4, which is repeated here for emphasis:
V _{1} =n(dΦ/dt) (repeated) 4]
The inductive component of coil voltage, V_{L}, depends only on rate of change of magnetic flux, independent of solenoid position. Inversely, magnetic flux varies as the linear time integral of inductive voltage, independent of shuttle motion. Approximately speaking, and fairly accurately for small motions in a soft landing zone, the square root of magnetic force varies as the linear time integral of inductive voltage, independent of shuttle motion. Eq. 38 is solved for current “I” to emphasize another relationship:
I=Φ(x _{eff}/μ_{0} nA) 49]
If flux were viewed as a type of current, then a solenoid would behave like a linear constantcoefficient “inductor” with respect to “flux current.” Actual electric current is much more complicated, varying as a function of applied voltage and solenoid shuttle position. As Eq. 49 suggests, it is also possible to consider electric current as a dependent variable, determined by a combination of effective shuttle position and total magnetic flux. For setting force in a solenoid, fortunately, it is the “well behaved” magnetic flux parameter whose control is important, so a good approach to servo control is to measure and control flux using relatively simple, constantcoefficient control means, and consider current as a “byproduct” of control, significant only as something that an amplifier must supply as needed to achieve the desired magnetic flux. The demand for current, and for the extra voltage needed to push that current through ohmic coil resistance in order to maintain a prescribed inductive voltage V_{1.}, will vary widely with changing shuttle position. Solving for the voltage required from a controller output at a given moment, we begin by solving Eq. 29 for V_{ext}:
V _{ext} =V _{1.} +I·R 50]
In a control context, current “I” will have just been measured. Though the “meaning” of “I” in terms of other variables is given by Eq. 49, there is no advantage in substituting the expansion on the right of Eq. 49 into Eq. 50. The controller will be targeting some rate of flux change, “dΦ/dt,” which will set the required inductive voltage V_{1. }according to Eq. 4. Substituting this voltage in Eq. 50 yields the proper setting for amplifier output voltage:
V _{est} =n(dΦ/dt)+I·R 51]
By making the proper choice of measurements and control parameters, soft landing control is reduced to a linear thirdorder control problem: second order from the double integration from acceleration to position of the shuttle, and moving from second to third order when one adds the integration from voltage to magnetic flux. (If magnetically induced eddy currents are substantial in the time frame of one shuttle flight, this raises the order of the dynamic system from 3 to at least 4, which makes the servo control problem substantially more difficult, and potentially impossible if solenoid coil measurements are the sole source of flux and trajectory information.)
Before proceeding with the control discussion, note that Eq. 51 suggests an alternative method for measuring coil current “I” as needed in Eq. 38 to solve for “x_{eff}” and, via Eq. 20a, for position “x.” If voltage readings are taken from a sense coil with “n1” turns, the measured sense voltage is “n1(dΦ/dt),” which multiplied by the turns ratio “n/n1” yields the inductive voltage term on the right of Eq. 51. In a switching regulator, “V_{ext}” is set either to the appropriate power supply voltage for the oncondition, or to zero for the currentrecirculating condition. The supply voltage may be a known regulated output or a measured unregulated value. The resistive voltage term “I·R” is adjusted to include the effects of all currentdependent voltages developed in the current path, e.g., the onresistance of a field effect transistor, the saturation voltage of a bipolar switching transistor or darlington pair, or the nonlinear forward voltage drop across a currentrecirculating diode. One might view the adjusted “I·R” voltage as “R(I)” where “R” is viewed as a nonlinear function of current “I.” With a knowledge of the two terms “n(dΦ/dt)” (as inferred from the sense coil output) and “V_{ext}” (which is zero or a supply voltage), and with a knowledge of the resistance function “R(I)” one is in a position to solve Eq. 51 for current “I” This solution is conceptually the simplest (and often most favorable computationally) in the recirculating mode where V_{ext}=0, for then one does not need to know the supply voltage and one need only solve “R(I)=−n(dΦ/dt)” for current I. Operationally, one may determine current “I” and solve for position by this simplest recirculatingmode equation during the poweroff periods of any drive pulse train. One then requires only a single sense coil AtoD channel, computing current, position, and force from a time integral (i.e. a sum) of the channel output and from the most recent instantaneous reading where the coil drive voltage is switched off.
Returning to the dynamic control problem, to avoid the problems of thirdorder control, the controller loop can be split into an inner, fastacting firstorder loop that exerts tight servo control over force via control of magnetic flux, and a slower outer secondorder loop that uses force to control shuttle position and velocity. For this outer loop, the principles of “PID” control are applicable, using Proportional, Integral, and Derivative terms. Inclusion of a significant integral term In a PID loop controlling a second (or higher) order mechanical system tends to introduce overshoot and ringing, which work to the detriment of energy efficiency and an ability to soft land without bumping at full closure (due to overshoot.) In a solenoid that fires repetitively and can be monitored by a control microprocessor, a circuit bias can be introduced that amounts to an integral correction carried out over many response repetitions, rather than within the time frame of a single actuation. The bias so determined will be closely related to the expected magnitude of flux to generate an equilibrium with load force at the landing point, either fullopen or fullclose. If the shuttle overshoots and lands with a bump, then the required landing flux bias was overestimated for a closing gap, or underestimated for an opening gap, and will be reduced or increased (respectively) for the next try. If the shuttle undershoots and has to be pulled in after coming to a stop short of the mark, then the opposite correction is needed. One supposes, in this context, that a microprocessor controller is monitoring solenoid performance (e.g., via analogtodigital conversion) and adjusting control parameters (e.g., a digitaltoanalog output) to optimize performance adaptively. When the solenoid load varies significantly and unpredictably with each individual flight, a more sophisticated control method may be needed to make onthefly parameter corrections that anticipate landing conditions.
To expand upon the controller design, the outer loop of the controller will demand measurements of “I” and “Φ” from which are computed a position “x_{eff}.” This value is compared to the nextmostrecent position for estimating a velocity. In the “PID” method, an error signal is defined by a weighted sum of position error, which is the Proportional term “x_{eff}x_{tgt}” for target position “x_{tgt}” (where the target will be zero on somewhere near zero for soft landing on closure), and velocity, the Derivative term, which is given by the most recent change in position. To the resulting error will be added an Integral term, or bias, which is often based on experience with previous soft or notsosoft landings, rather than being a dynamic integral for the present launch. The resulting “PID” sum sets a target for flux, “Φ,” which is a goal value for the inner loop of the controller. It so happens that the square of this target flux is the actual force that produces accelerations. The controller does not deal directly with force, but only indirectly in terms of the flux that is required to overcome external load forces and produce accelerations. To achieve a stable system, the inner loop should converge much more quickly than the lead time constant set by the ratio of the Proportional to the Derivative term in the outer loop. To get to the target “Φ” from the currently measured value of “Φ” with a first order controller, a rateofchange of flux will be set as a coefficient multiplied by the difference between the currently measured and the target flux. This rateofchange appears in the first term on the right of Eq. 51. Electric current “I” will have just been measured and provides the variable multiplier for the second term on the right of Eq. 51. The output set by the controller is the left hand term of Eq. 51, “V_{ext},” and this output alone controls the process of converging to a soft landing. In a switching regulator setting, the value for “V_{ext}” may be translated into the width of a single pulse, such that the average voltage over the coming controller interval including that voltage pulse will be “V_{ext}.” The time constant for the inner controller loop might then be set to exactly one controller interval, so that the width of a single pulse pushes flux from the most recent value all the way to the new target value. When the computed pulse exceeds the controller interval, then the pulse is set to occupy the entire controller interval, or most of it, and the controller will be in a slewing mode, seeking a maximum rate of change of flux.
A switching regulator driving a solenoid will typically provide only unipolar pulses, whose widths will become small when the solenoid is closed. If this regulator encounters large and unpredictable load variations, it may find itself requiring negative pulses, to “put on the brakes” and avoid closure impact. A switching method for “regenerative braking” of inductively sustained coil currents, mentioned above, will be shown in greater detail in the next section.
Spelling out the above “PID” controller approach in terms of equations in a specific application context, imagine that there is a fixed controller time interval, t, at the beginning of which a pulse is fired, preset for an interval t_{p}, based on the PID method. If the switching regulator highstate output voltage is V_{h}, and the lowstate output voltage is approximately zero, allowing solenoid current to flow from ground potential to ground potential, then the applied external voltage V_{ext }can be written as an average voltage over the pulse interval:
V _{ext} =V _{h}(t _{p} /t) duty cycle average voltage 52]
Rewriting the right side of Eq. 51 in terms of pulse width modulation, the controller will be seeking a change in flux, Φ, to get flux up to a target value during one pulse interval t. This net flux change per time interval is substituted for the time derivative of flux on the right side of Eq. 51, while the right side of Eq. 52 is substituted for the left side of Eq. 51:
V _{h}(t _{p} /t)=n(Φ/t)+I·R 53]
The prescription for Φ will be spelled out below. The controller will require solution of Eq. 53 for the pulse time interval, t_{p}, to be fired in order to provide the desired Φ:
t _{p}=(n·Φ+I·R·t)/V _{h} 54]
Note that the two terms in the parentheses on the right of Eq. 54 have SI units of voltseconds, and are divided by an onvoltage to give a pulse period in seconds. In the case of a pair of field effect transistors (FETs) switching one end of a solenoid coil between a supply voltage and ground, presuming similar onresistance for the two FETs, then it is appropriate to include the FET onresistance as part of the net resistance “R,” in addition to winding resistance, and then set V_{h }to the full supply rail voltage, without correction for drop across the switching FET.
The value for Φ comes from the most recent determination of flux by measurement, Φ_{n }for time index “n” just passed, and a target flux, Φ_{n+1}, determined as fulfilling the force requirement of the “PID” control loop:
Φ=Φ_{n+1}−Φ_{n} 55]
As indicated in Eq. 48, for a magnetic gap approaching zero, force varies roughly as the square of magnetic flux. For a control system in which the landing or holding force to be expected on a given landing is estimated from the force required on recent landings, the controller will establish an endpoint value for force or, in practice, the target flux that was required to provide that holding force, Φ_{tgt}. This target flux is the integral term of a “PID” loop, but in this context the integral is a sum from previous landing errors, possibly based on the most recent landing, or possibly based on an extrapolation from two or more previous landings. Because of the squarelaw nature of the force response, a given flux correction, Φ, will result in a larger change in force, and therefore in acceleration, for a larger bias in the magnitude Φ_{tgt}. A linear control method based on position “x_{eff}” and velocity “dx_{eff}/dt” would achieve different loop gains at different landing forces and, consequently, different endpoint flux levels. To make the loop gains independent of endpoint force (where this it might be relevant), we scale the system loop gain to vary inversely as the anticipated “Φ_{tgt}.”
Φ_{n+1}=Φ_{tgt}+(G/Φ _{tgt})(x _{eff} −x _{min} +τ·dx _{eff} /dt 56]
In Eq. 56, “G” is the loop gain coefficient, and “τ” is the phaselead time constant for the derivative controller term. The overall controller method includes repetitive solutions to Eq. 56, with substitution of the result from Eq. 56 into Eq. 55, and from Eq. 55 into Eq. 54, where the pulse interval is set in order to produce the appropriate flux and force. Values for “x_{eff}” come from earlier equations, depending on the measurement approach (i.e. using derivative determination of “1/L” or integral determination of “Φ,” as discussed), and the time derivative of “x_{eff}” typically comes from a finite difference over the most recent time interval. One can also infer a more uptodate velocity parameter by examining the relationship of velocity to ratesofchange of the flux and current parameters going into Eq. 38 and designing for slope measurements and computations based on those parameters and rates. As velocity approaches zero, the error term with the gain multiplier “G” goes to zero as “x_{eff}” approaches the target “x_{min}.” By expressing gain as the ratio of “G” to anticipated flux magnitude, one achieves a relatively constant gain in the realm of force and acceleration. If the factor “G” is pushed too high, the controller will become unstable due to time lag between measurement and force response, i.e. some multiplier times the controller time interval t, and also due to possible highorder time response lags (such as skin effect) in the electromechanical system. By varying dynamic gain adaptively as shown in Eq. 56, the designer helps insure stability over a range of operating conditions and can push the limits of loop gain over the entire operating envelope. Where landing force does not vary significantly, the coefficient “(G/Φ_{tgt})” can be replaced by a constant coefficient without compromise to the controller design. The gain and phase lead coefficients of Eq. 56 can be set, in a practical context, by empirical determination of good performance, or they can be determined for a specific control system from analytic considerations. Notice that in a microprocessor that does not provide for fast numerical division, the ratio “G/Φ_{tgt}” can be computed in advance of a solenoid launch and used as a constant multiplier during realtime dynamic control.
Concerning landing point errors, if the estimate used for “Φ_{tgt}” is in error, then either:

 1) the position variable “x_{eff}” will exceed “x_{min}” as velocity settles to zero, with no landing; or
 2) the shuttle will land with a “bump” indicated by an abrupt reduction or bounce in “dx_{eff}/dt.”
In case 1, as successive values of “Φ_{n+1}” approach a constant limit, that limit indicates the flux actually required to balance the load force, in which case the final value of flux may be set to the new target, “Φ_{tgt}” which will exceed the previous value.
In case 2, “Φ_{tgt}” has been overestimated and can be reduced by a multiplier slightly less than 1.0 for the next landing. Alternatively, a better estimate of “Φ_{tgt}” might be computed if the controller is able to observe and record values at the impact point. This computation could be tricky and dependent on the nature and nonlinearities of the specific controller apparatus. When premature landing takes place, the controllerdetermined dynamic flux “Φ_{n+1}” might be decreasing because of the increasing nonlinear multiplier (dx_{eff}/dx) of Eq. 42; or it might be increasing since the shuttle is decelerating as it approaches its target, since that deceleration is decreasing toward zero, and therefore since the force needed to hold the shuttle against the load force would be decreasing; or flux change on landing approach may be driven significantly by changing load force. If there is any dynamic overshoot or tendency toward ringing in the control loop, this further complicates determination of the soft landing target. In a practical method, some reduction in target flux will be called for if the shuttle lands with a bump and is held at the mechanical stop. If there is bumping due to dynamic overshoot with final settling short of the mechanical stop, this indicates a problem with the control loop parameters, which have been set for less than critical damping, calling for adjustments in gain and phase lead to achieve the smoothest possible approach.
As a practical matter, there is generally “no hurry” about soft landing. When touchdown is approached, duty cycle and drive current are very low, so power consumption is near a minimum, whether or not actual mechanical contact is achieved in the solenoid. It is reasonable to contemplate a controller design in which the target landing point is short of actual mechanical closure and the shuttle is caused to hover dynamically for the duration of time that the solenoid is in an “energized” or “on” state. If hovering is maintained, the controller will effectively be measuring timevarying load force. For hovering performance, the controller might reasonably include a slowlyaccumulating integral correction to error, which would track changing load and leave the controller initialized to recent load force history for the next launch.
The discussion above has concentrated entirely on controller operation approaching a soft landing. At launch, Eq. 54 will generally dictate a pulse interval t_{p}, exceeding the time interval t, i.e. a duty cycle exceeding 100%. In this event, the controller will operate in a slewing mode. If control is based on AC determination of reciprocal inductance from current slope on a sawtooth waveform, or from ringing frequency after a voltage transition, then the system should slew at a pulse interval set to give somewhat less than 100% duty cycle, so that there will be an oscillation in current and a possibility of measuring reciprocal inductance dynamically. If control is based on integral determination of magnetic flux, then the driving amplifier can be turned steadily on until the controller method calls for a reduction in the pulse interval below its maximum. The launch phase must not establish such a high cumulative energy, including kinetic energy and inductivelystored energy, that the shuttle will overshoot its mark. There is the possibility of active “braking” of inductive current, including “regenerative braking” wherein excess inductive energy results in a pumping of charge back into the power supply. With active braking, a more aggressive launch is possible without overshoot, if the system places any premium on actuation speed. In terms of energy conservation, experience has proved that as long as the drive voltage and winding impedance are established such that the force on the shuttle overcomes the load force by a reasonable margin, e.g., at least 125% of the minimum, and by not too large a margin, e.g., not in excess of 800% of the minimum, then the net energy dissipation will be quite close to the minimum achievable dissipation. A reasonable target is for an initial magnetic force of about 200% of the minimum to produce acceleration against a spring preload, with design for a higher value where there is great uncertainty about the preload. In the case of a solenoid whose shuttle starts out in equilibrium with a spring and encounters a progressive increase in force as the magnetic gap closes, as a very rough guideline, magnetic force should ramp up initially about twice as fast as the load force, i.e. a variation on the rule that magnetic force should be of the order of 200% of load force in the launch phase. If “reasonably” designed, the details of the controller method are not critical to energy performance. The controller must establish launch with a reasonable acceleration and must cut power soon enough to avoid overshoot of the landing target. The soft landing method outlined mathematically above takes over from a launchphase or slewing phase and is based on an exponential final approach to the target, which is a relatively simple method from a design standpoint. Other methods are possible for providing nonexponential target approach paths, with about the same overall energy performance.
The above discussion has been directed toward a controller in which the position variable “Xeff” is determined as a ratio, either of current/flux, or of d(current)/d(time)/d(flux)/d(time), the latter ratio being proportional to the reciprocal of dynamic inductance. Jayawant (U.S. Pat. No. 5,467,244) teaches a system for approximating the ratio of current/flux by a linear fit about an operating point. Consider the ratio A/B of variables A and B, where A is close to A0 and B is close to B0. From the zeroorder and linear terms of Taylor series expansions in variables A and B near A=A0 and B=B0, one obtains the linear ratio approximation,
A/B≅A0/B0+(A−A0)/B0−(B−B0)(A0/B0A^2) for A and B near constants A0 and B0. 57]
Since force obeys a squarelaw equation for solenoids, the following linear approximation (also from a Taylor expansion) is useful near a known operating point, and is exploited by Jayawant:
A ^{2} ≅A0^{2}+2(A)−A0)A0 for A near constant A0. 58]
In both formulas, the perturbation differences A−A0 and B−B0 are multiplied by fixed coefficients. When the operating point is predetermined, as in the context described by Jayawant for magnetic levitation with small perturbations from the operating point, then a linear circuit can be used to implement the above quotient and ratio approximations. For continuous levitation, however, there are problems with Jayawant's approach of using the ratio I/Φ where the magnetic flux Φ is determined as the time integral of an induced voltage: specifically, the integral drifts over time. An AC determination of currentchange to fluxchange is more cumbersome to implement by Jayawant's approaches, requiring the use of a highfrequency carrier and amplitude detection. Furthermore, experience with real solenoids shows that AC eddy currents induced in metal solenoid material cause the measured inductance to deviate substantially from the ideal relationship, exploited by Jayawant, that 1/L indicates position X. An alternative approach offered here, employing I and Φ rather than their derivatives, is to base control not entirely on estimated position, but rather on estimated force in the short term, and average actuation voltage or current in the long term. If a solenoid is subject to a stabilizing mechanical spring force as well as a destabilizing tendency in the electromagnetic force, one can substantially reduce the electromagnetic destabilization by exerting servo control for constant magnetic flux, Φ, as determined by integration of induced voltage. In the short term, solenoid drive voltage is controlled by deviation of flux from a target flux value, which corresponds to a magnetic force in equilibrium with mechanical spring force at a desired final position. To maintain this position, a particular coil current will be required, and longterm deviation of servocontrolled coil current from a target value is taken as an indication that the integral estimate of magnetic flux is drifting. Such drift is eliminated by summing into the flux integrator (or digital accumulator in a digital implementation of the controller) an error signal representing the difference between actual drive winding current or voltage and that target current or voltage associated with the desired position. In the long term, then, the controller stabilizes current or voltage to a target, which only works when the same controller is controlling current to stabilize magnetic flux in the short term. Note that position measurement is absent from this description. If the zerovelocity magnetic flux is on target, or if the longterm average current needed to stabilize flux is on target, then position is on target by inference, based on a knowledge of the system. In a hybrid approach, short term servo control is based on a linear combination of current and flux, as with Jayawant's linear ratio approximation, but longterm control is based on average current or average applied coil voltage, which may in turn be estimated from average pulse duty cycle from zero to a given supply voltage, in the context of a switching regulator. Implementation of this approach will be described in an embodiment of the instant invention,
Jayawant's controllers employ linear power amplifiers to actuate the drive coils, all approach which needlessly dissipates substantial power. A switching or ClassD amplifier can give an efficiency improvement, but then the AC signals introduced into the controller circuit must be dealt with. Taking advantage of that situation, embodiments described below are designed intentionally to make the feedback loop go unstable and oscillate, by analogy to a thermostat that maintains a desired temperature within small error by switching its output discontinuously in response to measured error, resulting in a loop that controls duty cycle rather than a continuous analog parameter. This oscillatory control loop approach results in an energyconservative transformation from DC power at constant voltage into coil power at variable voltage and current. In an oscillatory control loop, AC signal information is present that can be used to advantage for servo control. One use of this information parallels a use employed by Jayawant, where Jayawant applies a known AC voltage amplitude to a coil at high frequency and reads the resulting AC current as a measure of reciprocal inductance and of effective magnetic gap. This approach by itself parallels applicant's use, described under “OBJECTS OF THE INVENTION” as the numerator of the derivative difference ratio, of the quantity (dl/dt), the oscillatory change in current slope. The instant invention, by contrast, derives this quantity from a very robust signal associated with powering the solenoid, without an auxiliary oscillator. In the efficient switching regulator environment taught here, switching noise at constantly varying frequency and duty cycle would mask a small carrier signal such as is taught by Jayawant, but in the new context, the switching noise itself is interpreted as a positionindicating signal. As will be shown, onesided rectification of switching noise induced in a sense coil can be used to infer solenoid current from a large, robust signal, without reliance on extraction of current information from a current sense resistor, whose voltage differential signal must in the simplest driver topologies be read against a large commonmode voltage swing.
We have discussed the achievement of linear servo control, whose outcome is to establish a roughly exponential decay of error, including simple exponential decay and ringing within a decaying exponential envelope. A real solenoid controller has builtin slew rate limits that set boundaries to the region of linear behavior and, consequently, the range of applicability of linear control methods. Typically, the solenoid driver amplifier operates between voltage output limits that set the maximum rate at which solenoid current can be increased and decreased. In the most common twostate output controller, the “on” output state drives current toward a maximum while the “off” output state shortcircuits the solenoid winding through a transistor, allowing the current to vary and, ultimately, decay, in passive response to resistance and changing magnetic gap. The momentum attained by the solenoid shuttle falls into two categories: mechanical and electromagnetic. The mechanical momentum is related to the inertia of the solenoid shuttle and its coupled load. The “electromagnetic momentum” is the natural persistence of the solenoid magnetic field. A controller can be designed to provide braking of electromagnetic momentum if it provides a drive output state that resists the flow of electric current in the solenoid drive winding. A switching controller can provide an output state designated “brake” that slows the flow of current established during the “on” state faster than that flow would slow down in the “off” state. An effective way to provide a “brake” state in a twotransistor output stage, one transistor connecting the output to a supply voltage and the other transistor connecting the output to a ground voltage, is to “tristate” the output, i.e. to turn both transistors off, and provide a zener clamp diode between the output and ground to limit the inductivelyproduced voltage swing on the far side of ground potential from the DC supply potential (i.e. a negative swing for a positive supply or a positive swing for a negative supply). A more complicated “H” drive output configuration, familiar to electrical engineers, functions with a doublepole doublethrowswitch to reverse the solenoid lead connections and allow the inductive current “momentum” of the solenoid to pump current back into the single supply rail in the “regenerative braking” mode mentioned earlier. Notice that regenerative braking can only reduce the electromagnetic “momentum” quickly, removing but not reversing the electromagnetic driving force. This is because electromagnetic force is a solenoid not base don permanent magnets is inherently unipolar, a square law phenomenon, as indicated, e.g., in Eq. 42, whose only controlled term is the squarelaw term “Φ^{2}.” The variable multiplier term “dx_{eff}/dx” of Eq. 42 is a function only of position “x_{eff}” and cannot be altered or reversed by the controller. Thus, even with electrical braking, there is no quick way to brake the mechanical momentum toward closure of a magnetic gap. Thus, one is inevitably confronted with a mechanical slewing limitation and the inevitably of overshoot if one establishes an excessive momentum toward gap closure. For providing soft landing at fullopen, the slew rate limit imposed by a finite supply rail voltage implies an upper limit to electromagnetic braking of a shuttle driven by mechanical springs. Again, this situation implies that when excessive momentum is established toward the fullopen limit stop, overshoot and impact are inevitable.
Where the direction of momentum is specified, i.e., toward fullclosure or fullopen position, then it is useful to analyze slewing dynamics in terms of energy rather than momentum. Whereas the definitions of mechanical and electromagnetic “momentum” differ, energy is commonly described by the same units (e.g., joules in S.I. units) in both mechanical and electromagnetic contexts, and it is meaningful to speak of the total energy of the solenoid, combining mechanical and electromagnetic terms. At full closure with zero velocity for a solenoid shuttle being pushed open by a mechanical spring, the total energy of the solenoid assembly is the potential energy of the spring. While analysis is possible for any specific nonlinear spring or complex mechanical load including masses, nonlinear springs, and nonlinear dampers, we will restrict ourselves here to the commonplace and useful example of a linear spring and a single lumped mass, described by Eq. 36 as repeated here:
d ^{2} x/dt ^{2}=(F+K 1(x _{1} −x))/M acceleration equation repeated here 36]
To review, the mechanical spring rate is “K1,” and “x_{1}” describes the coordinate of a fully relaxed spring. The fullopen mechanical stop for this system, defined by x=x_{open}, will lie between x=0 and x=x_{1 }for a system with a spring preload. Eq. 36 is valid only for the range between 0 and x_{1}, i.e. between the mechanical stops defining fullclose and fullopen. The mechanical potential energy of this system varies between minimum and maximum limits:
In the simplest control situation, all the constants of Eqs. 36, 59, and 60 are known in advance and can be incorporated into a control method for a specific solenoid. In interesting situations, one or more characteristics of the mechanical load of the solenoid will be unknown at the time of solenoid launch. In a practical solenoid application described later in this paper, the effective total mass “M” and the spring constant “K1” do not vary, but conditions at launch do vary. Specifically, the solenoid pulls on a shortstroke piston (described later, using a molded plastic “living hinge” or rolling seal rather than a sliding fluid seal) that draws a fluid through a valve, which remains closed before launch time. The pressure of the fluid behind that closed valve is unknown at launch, which amounts to not knowing the force preload on the system and, consequently, the equilibrium value of “x_{1}.” When the solenoid is energized and begins to move, and specifically when its motion is coupled to the source fluid pressure through an open valve, then the acceleration of the shuttle is an indication of the effective preload. Analysis of measurements taken early in launch lead to a determination of the launch pulse duration needed to generate a trajectory toward a specific target value “x_{tgt}” at the minimum point of the trajectory. The starting value of “x,” which is “x_{open}” in Eq. 60, will vary according to the initial fluid volume behind the piston. The value of “x_{tgt}” will also vary according to the desired final fluid volume behind the piston. At maximum fill, x_{tgt}=0, i.e., the solenoid reaches maximum magnetic closure, but in typical operation the endpoint volume is targeted as less than maximum fill. In this solenoid control context, there is no use of “soft landing” or servocontrolled convergence to a target “x.” In one configuration, passive fluid check valves halt the motion of both the fluid and the magnetic shuttle up to launch time and after the shuttle passes its position of maximum closure and begins to fall back toward open. In an alternate configuration, active solenoid valves perform similar functions to check valves but permit more flexible control, particularly for precision dispensing of fluid in medical infusions and industrial applications. It is seen that in the context just described, the entirety of solenoid servo control consists of launch control to achieve a prescribed target under variable operating conditions, with no use of softlanding control.
Controller designs and methods meeting the requirements of this pumping application are applicable in more restrictive contexts, e.g., where the fullopen start position for the solenoid is fixed but the spring bias resisting solenoid closure to a specified “x_{tgt}” is unknown until the solenoid lifts away from its fullopen stop. Common applications will call for an adaptive launch method combined with a softlanding method that takes over the final part of the solenoid trajectory, once unwanted preconditions for overshoot have been avoided by the launch method. The nonlinear adaptive launch method to be described below can give a minimumtime trajectory to a target. It is feasible to dispense with separate launch control and use a linear “softlanding” method from launch onward, provided that the phaselead time constant “τ” (Eq. 56) is made large enough to bring the system out of slewing before too much energy has been injected. To achieve maximum speed, the value of “τ” would have to vary according to launch conditions that may be unknown in advance. Maximum speed, however, will often be of little practical importance.
Of greater importance in the fluid pump application described above is the freeing of a microprocessor from a solenoid control task to make way for another task. Specifically, the active valve pump embodiment to be described later involves three controlled solenoids, one for piston pumping and two for valve actuation. For economy, all three valves can be made to operate from a single microprocessor controller. The piston solenoid is energized first, to fullon, after which a regular time sequence of samples from a sense winding provide values proportional to “dΦ/dt,” the rate of change of magnetic flux. A running total of these regular samples gives the present flux. Interleaved with sampling and summing of samples of “dΦ/dt” the microprocessor controls the inlet fluid valve solenoid to reach fullopen with a soft landing and switch to a lowcomputation holding mode, e.g., at a predetermined holding duty cycle. The controller then returns its attention to the piston solenoid to determine a cutoff time for achievement of a prescribed “x_{tgt}.” Once that cutoff time is reached and the piston solenoid is shut down, the controller can wait for the projected trajectory interval to elapse and then shut down the inlet valve. At this point, the pumped volume has been captured, and the computation tasks relating to the solenoids for the inlet valve and piston are done. The microprocessor can therefore concentrate on the tasks of pulsing the outlet valve and dispensing the fluid that has been pulled in by the piston.
To summarize the method development task ahead, we seek a launch controller that begins launch with an initially unknown effective springbalance value “x_{1}” whose physical location is beyond the fullopen mechanical stop at x_{open }(i.e., the spring preloads the shuttle against a fullopen stop) and which adaptively targets a predetermined but possibly variable minimum value of“x” at “x_{tgt}” where the shuttle velocity goes through zero. The value of “x_{tgt}” may be set at or just barely above zero where a simple soft landing is sought, such that the solenoid shuttle stops in the vicinity of full closure, possibly with a minor bump, and is then pulled to full closure, with a first or possibly second minor bump, using a few openloop power pulses of appropriate magnitude.
The specific procedure given below suggests the manner of approaching different but related control problems that will arise in practical situations. A generalized mathematical treatment for control under unknown mechanical conditions would be quite difficult to approach, given the multitude of ways in which practical systems can differ. The analysis below, following relatively quickly from the governing equations given above, represents but one of many variant paths from the governing equations to a control method appropriate for a specific application. With the example to be given, the engineer skilled in the art in this area of control engineering, and schooled in the form of analysis provided in detail in this disclosure, will be able to come up with a control method and/or controller design tailored to the particular application, but falling within the scope of the invention being disclosed herein.
In the event that “x_{open}” from Eq. 60 is not initially known to a controller or control algorithm, this value may be measured with a low level power pulse that causes little or no solenoid motion and that consumes little energy. Starting at zero current and zero flux, a fixedduration voltage pulse is applied. Sense winding readings are taken at regular intervals and summed to a register to provide an integrating variable proportional to the total magnetic flux, “Φ.” Alternatively, where no separate sense winding is provided, current “I” is measured and a computed “I·R” voltage drop across the winding is subtracted from the voltage applied to the winding to infer the induced voltage in the drive coil, which in turn is integrated over multiple samples to provide a running estimate of flux “Φ.” In the vicinity of the end of this pulse, perhaps both before and after the end of the pulse, electric current “I” flowing through the drive winding is divided by flux “Φ” to compute “x_{eff}” from Eq. 38. As has been shown, “x_{eff}” can also be determined from current slopes at differing drive voltages using Eq. 40, inferring reciprocal inductance “1/L” from current slopes. It is seen that for a single pulse, computing “1/L” from current slopes and correcting for the effect of electrical resistance amounts to the same thing as computing flux “Φ” from resistancecorrected coil voltage and cumulative current. It is only in the redetermination of “x_{eff}” during later voltage pulses that the flux and reciprocalinductance methods differ. This position parameter thus obtained is used to compute“x(_{open},” e.g., by inversion of approximate curvefit Eq. 20 to solve for “x=x_{open}” from “x_{eff}.” The pulse width used for this determination is chosen small enough that the solenoid force does not overcome the preload force and there is no motion. For convenience, current and flux are allowed to settle to essentially zero before the launch pulse.
By an alternative approach, the initial or open value of “x_{eff}” is determined by connecting a capacitor across the solenoid coil, measuring a resonant frequency or period, and computing inductance L or its reciprocal, I/L. A first preferred embodiment of the invention includes a “ping” circuit for gap determination, although that embodiment is a servomechanism rather than a launch control apparatus.
Having determined “x_{open}” the controller now initiates the voltage pulse to the drive solenoid. Current will ramp up at a rate limited by inductance until the magnetic force is sufficient to overcome the spring preload and start the shuttle moving. Before shuttle motion begins, theory predicts that current “I” will increase in linear proportion to flux “Φ” in the ratio that was already measured to determine “x_{open}.” Empirical measurement has shown that with ferrite solenoid components, this linear proportion is observed in measurement to good accuracy. As soon as the magnetic gap begins to close, the ratio “I/Φ” will begin to decrease. If the excitation is not a continuous pulse but a pulse train at high duty cycle, so that current ripple can be measured to determine reciprocal inductance, “I/L,” then this measure of magnetic gap will also hold steady until the magnetic force exceeds (tic preload force threshold and the gap begins to shrink. Let us suppose that a threshold is set for detection of shuttle motion, specifically when “x_{eff}” is reduced fractionally by “ε” below the value corresponding to the linearized distance parameter “x_{open}.” In terms of repeated measurements of “I” and integrated “Φ” this reduction is expressed by the threshold inequality of Eq. 61, which derives from Eq. 38:
I<(I−ε)(I _{open}/Φ_{open})(Φ) current/flux threshold equation for motion detection 61]
The values for “I_{open}” and “Φ_{open}” are the numbers that were used, in the prelaunch pulse test, to compute “x_{open},” and the reference (I_{open}/Φ_{open}) ratio of Eq. 61 is precomputed, appearing as a constant during the rapid repetitive computations to detect a threshold crossing. To avoid repeated division computations, the timevarying flux denominator “Φ” of Eq. 38 is multiplied through to yield the form of Eq. 61, free of repetitive division computations.
If the launch onpulse is interrupted by short offpulses to reveal the changing AC impedance of the coil, an AC equivalent of Eq. 61 is derived from Eq. 39 and expressed in Eq. 62:
(dI/dt)<(l−ε)(Δ(dI/dt)open) current slope threshold equation for motion detection 62]
In getting from Eq. 39 to Eq. 62, it is assumed that the denominator voltage change V is constant, being primarily the power supply voltage but with corrections, e.g., for the forward drop of a currentrecirculating diode. The change in current slope is associated with the switching transition of the driver transistor, e.g. transistor 509 of
The threshold value for “ε” may be set at a low, practical value, e.g., ε=0.05, so that a combination of circuit noise, quantization error, and arithmetic error will not cause a false trigger. The time delay from the start of the launch pulse to passage of the motion threshold associated with a given “ε,” as determined by the first measurement that satisfies Eq. 61 or 62, is designated simply t_{ε}.
If one could extrapolate back from the triggering event at t_{ε}, to the estimated current where the force balance threshold was crossed, then one could quantify the preload force and, from there, define all the analytic parameters that determine shuttle trajectory as a function of the electrical input. For the pragmatic task of launching the solenoid on a trajectory to a desired maximum closure at x=x_{tgt}, however, analytic solutions are quite cumbersome, and an empirically derived function is quite sufficient for launch control. In the context presented, this function has three arguments:

 Xopen=launch start point, measured via prelaunch pulse and Eq. 38 or 40 and 20a
 Xtgt=target end point, measurable by a test pulse at the trajectory end
 tε=launch acceleration time for motion to designated fraction of full trajectory
Based on these three arguments, one desires a launch pulse period, t_{p}, that will cause a trajectory to reach the target:
t _{p} =t _{p}(x _{open} , x _{tgt} , t _{ε} defines arguments of pulse period function 63]
The nature of this pulse of width t_{p }is better understood in light of
If the pulse interval is increased by about 3%, the 10% gap residual will be reduced to 0%.
Returning to Eq. 63, we have postulated an advance measurement of x_{open }and a predetermined value of x_{tgt}, leaving only one unknown, t_{ε}, to be determined “onthefly.” The event that sets t, is position X crossing a threshold indicating that motion has begun, where this change in X is inferred from a change in the ratio of current/flux according to Eq. 61. A change in the ratio of derivatives, (d(current)/d(time))/(d(flux)/d(time)), performs equivalently for detecting a position change, and detection of such a change is simplified to solution of the threshold inequality Eq. 62. Using either Eq. 61 or Eq. 62, the intent is to detect incipient solenoid motion, and, by the timing of this detection, to define a future time at which a launch power pulse should terminate. An unknown preload condition will cause the timing to vary.
An obvious method of defining the specific numerical values for Eq. 63 is a combination of empirical measurement and mathematical curve fitting. One begins with an instrumented prototype of the system to be manufactured and controlled. One sets an input bias, e.g., a bias fluid pressure, and experimentally pulses the system until an interval is determined that carries the solenoid from a specified starting position to a specified final position. The determined time intervals are recorded and the test repeated for other input bias values. The resulting data sets define Eq. 63 for a specified, fixed initial position and a specified, fixed final position. A onedimensional curve fit to the data is obtained and programmed into a controller.
If the controller is to be operated with variable initial positions, then the parameter x_{open }of Eq. 63 comes into play, raising the dimensionality of Eq. 63 from one to two. Conceptually, one must now repeat the series of experiments described in the previous paragraph for a series of different starting values x_{open }yielding a family of curves. The specific computation algorithm used to implement Eq. 63 must then be capable of defining a specific member of the family of curves when the starting value x_{open }is specified. In actual hardware, x_{open }is a measurement, a reading taken in advance of launch. As will be shown in hardware embodiments, the parameter used in place of x_{open }is not a true magnetic gap, but rather a measurable electrical parameter of the solenoid corresponding to the magnetic gap, e.g., inductance, or ringing frequency of the solenoid in a tuned circuit with a capacitor.
If the parameter x_{open }is fixed but x_{tgt }is to be made variable, then the situation is comparable to that of the last paragraph, with Eq. 63 defining a twodimensional surface, to be regarded as a family of onedimensional curves, one of which is to be preselected when x_{tgt }is defined.
For defining interpolation over a smooth surface defined by Eq. 63 when two input parameters are free to vary, one approach is multinomial curve fitting. Multinomial become cumbersome even in two domain variables, and much more so in three domain variables, due to the proliferation of crossproduct terms at high orders. Interpolation from a two or threedimensional table is a relatively easy method for implementing Eq. 63. A hybrid of table interpolation and polynomial curve fitting is to express each coefficient of a polynomial in the variable “t_{p}” in terms of a tabular interpolation with respect the variable x_{open }or x_{tgt }or, in the general case, in terms of the variable pair (x_{open}, x_{tgt}). The particular values for x_{open }and x_{tgt }will be established before launch, and using those values, each of the several polynomial coefficients is defined by an interpolation. The set of coefficients thus obtained defines a specific polynomial t_{p}=POLY(t_{ε}) for use in the real time computation, immediately after “t_{ε}” is measured and before the interval defining “t_{p}” has elapsed.
For any of the launch control situations described above, computer simulation may be used at least for a preliminary computational definition of Eq. 63. A curvefit method derived from computer simulations can be used for designing and evaluating the overall actuation system, including determination of the system's complexity, cost, efficiency, and sensitivity of control to resolution of time and parameter measurements, including the needed bit resolution for analog conversions. Once a system has been computerdesigned and built in hardware, the specific parameters for implementation of Eq. 63 may be finetuned using empirical data, which will generally be subject to physical phenomena not fully modeled in the computer (e.g., to the viscoelastic properties of a rubber pump diaphragm, which are difficult to predict from a simulation)
Examining potentially simpler methods that accomplish the same purpose as Eq. 63, consider curve 420 of
By similar reasoning to the above paragraph, a threshold function can be described in relation to induced voltage Vi, instead of current 1. This threshold function is illustrated by trace 450, which touches the Vi curves at 452, 454, and 456, defining the transition times for 412, 414, and 416, respectively. Observe that the triggering of Vd causes the Vi curve immediately to break away from the threshold curve 450, whereas current triggering at trace 420 caused the current curves to bend down across the threshold function.
Other threshold functions are readily derived. Consider the example of a threshold function that incorporates the exponential nature of the nomotion induced velocity trace 458. An exponential function f decaying toward zero with time constant τ takes the general form f=A EXP)(−t/τ). The time derivative is then df/dt=−(A/τ)·EXP(−t/τ). The weighted sum given by “f+τ·df/dt” is particularly useful as a threshold function, since this sum equals zero up to the moment when X begins to change. Hence, this particular sum is an especially sensitive indicator of motion and amenable to motion threshold detection in a real device. To complicate the use of this threshold function, the time constant τ is not constant with operating conditions, but varies in proportion to initial solenoid inductance, which in turn depends on the parameter x_{open}.
It is noted that the threshold reference function to which (e.g.) the sum “f+τ·df/dt” is compared is a slice of a higherdimensional function, that slice being cut at a value of x_{open}. Thus, the significant parameters for threshold detection are all altered by initial solenoid position for the approach described in this paragraph.
To implement the strategies illustrated in
The solenoid windings, including the drive winding 506 and the sense winding 507, actually wrap around the core, sharing substantially the same magnetic flux, but they are diagrammed as is conventional with transformers, as helices running alongside the part of the diagram representing the magnetic core. The polarity convention is that when a voltage appears +to − from the top to the bottom of one coil, the same induced potential will appear in the other coil terminals, going +to − from top to bottom. From a physicist's standpoint, the coils are intended to spiral with the same sense (i.e. clockwise or counterclockwise) going from top to bottom, with the result that the signs of d(flux)/d(time) in the two coils match and yield induced voltages of like sign and with potentials in the same ratio as the numbers of windings. Thus, when a positive voltage from V, at 528 is applied, via series current sense resistor 524, to node 526 including the upper terminal of winding 506, and the circuit is completed via the lower terminal of 506 at 508 into the drain of Nchannel enhancement mode field effect transistor (FET) 509, and thence via the source node 511 into ground terminal 514, and when FET 509 is turned on, then the positivetonegative potential difference from top to bottom of 506 will drive current down through the coil. The rate of increase of this current will be opposed by an induced voltage, which will appear in the same direction in 507, tending to cause a current flow from bottom to top of that coil, i.e. in a direction that would oppose the external potential applied to the bottom coil. Recalling the gedanken experiments with superconducting coils as used to derive the early electromagnetic formulas, were there no resistance in the secondary coil, and were that coil shorted, then the ampereturns of current flow in the secondary coil would cancel the ampereturns in the primary, meaning that the currents would tend to flow in opposite directions, the one driven externally against the induced potential, the other driven from within and in the direction of the induced potential.
Coil 507 is grounded at its lower terminal and connects via node 532 to the noninverting input of unity buffer amplifier 550, whose output node 534 connects back to the inverting input of 550. 534 also connects into the channel 0, or “ch0” input of Analog/Digital Converter (ADC) 540, whose output connects via bus 542 to computer (CPU) 520. Thus, 520 receives digital data indicating the induced voltage in coil 507, which varies in known proportion to the induced voltage in 506. The induced voltage signal is proportional to the rate of change of magnetic flux through the windings 506 and 507. As stated in the mathematical section above, the induced voltage signal to the CPU via 534 and channel 0 is also a transformed potential representing the sum of the applied voltage and the resistive voltage: recall Eq. 50 for the voltage transformer relation, and Eq. 51 for an expression in terms of rate of change of magnetic flux. Since buffer amplifier 550 draws negligible current via 532, the voltage appearing at 532 from coil 507 lacks a significant resistive term and therefore indicates only V_{1}, the induced or inductive component of voltage. Completing the diagram of
Given the computer and interface circuit or
Launch control methods and devices are limited in their scope of operation to situations where initial conditions are stable and measurable and where control extends only to a simple trajectory from a starting position to a target. Continuous control is more complicated but much more flexible, allowing for a system about which less is known in advance and, obviously, allowing continuing control, for gap closure, gap opening, and levitation.
To identify the “outer” and “inner” feedback loops described more abstractly earlier in this Specification, 690 provides a large amplification to the difference between a force signal, varying roughly in proportion to “Φ^{2}” via wire 624, and a target force, consisting of a bias force from 698 plus a transfer function of position via summing resistors 664, 674, and 691 for integral, proportional, and derivative components of the transfer function. The “inner” loop causes net force, including magnetic and spring components, to track the target force with minimal time lag, due to the high gain of 690. The “outer” loop, not so apparent in the circuit schematic, involves the mechanical response of the armature of solenoid 500 to the controlled force. The mechanical load is modeled conceptually as a mass, spring 504, and damper 505 (recalling the labeling of FIG. 5). The mechanical transient and settling behavior is modified by an equivalent electronic spring in the feedback loop attributed to proportional gain via 674, by an equivalent damper via 691, and by an equivalent active mechanical component, having no passive mechanical counterpart, in the integral correction term via 664, The net equivalent load, including mechanical and electronic feedback components giving rise to equivalent net inertia, net restoration, net damping, and cumulative or integral correction behavior, is the responsiveness of the outer loop. If the generation of a change in force in response to an error signal at 690 involved a significant time lag, then this lag, viewed as a transfer function, would be multiplied by the transfer function responsiveness of the net equivalent load, in many cases leading to an unstable system. By making the inner loop sufficiently fast and by providing adequate damping in the outer loop transfer function, a servomechanism can be constructed that is free of ringing and overshoot response to small signal perturbations. It is recognized that in responding to large perturbations or large initial errors, the inner forcecorrecting loop of
With too much inner loop gain, the circuit of
A/B≅A 0/B 0+(A−A 0)/B 0−(B−B 0)(A 0/B 0^2) for A and B near constants A 0 and B 0. 57]
A ^{2} ≅A 0 ^{2}+2(A−A 0)A 0 for A near constant A 0. 58]
Instead of using a division circuit to compute the current/flux ratio, I/Φ, we utilize the approximation of Eq. 57 to approximate this ratio as a constant plus two linear terms, a positive term for variation of I about a reference I0, and a negative term for variation of Φ about a reference Φ0. As in
The integrator based on amplifier 832 includes a bias voltage, labeled to at 862, which is applied via conductor 858 to the noninverting input of 832. In the circuit of
For proportional feedback, the proportional “Prp” signal on resistor 674 of
The approximations made in going from the servo of
For reasons of economy and mechanical simplicity and reliability, earlier circuits have derived all position information from electrical responses of the solenoid winding or windings. Where the solenoid design permits incorporation of a separate position sensor, performance comparable to the relatively complicated “exact.” servo of
In
An example of the mechanical configuration of a Hall effect sensor and permanent magnet is shown as part of
The circuit of
Examining the circuit in more detail, the solenoid at 1000 is like solenoid 500. The top of the drive winding is connected to positive battery terminal 1029, labeled Vb,” which is also a node common to the anode of zener diode 1091, the cathode of shottky barrier diode 1096, and one side of “ping” capacitor 1063. The bottom of the drive winding, opposite the positive battery terminal, is driven via node 1086 by the drain of FET 1085, whose source is returned to common ground, which is also the negative battery terminal. Associated with the drive winding are several components for sustaining a recirculating current, impeding and slowing the recirculating current, and pinging. Shottky diode 1096, for conducting an inductivelysustained recirculating current when power is not being applied via FET 1085, has its anode connected to node 1086 via a bidirectional FET which is part of optical switch 1088, the gate of the FET being activated effectively by light from a photodiode component of 1088. The anode of this photodiode is connected to regulated supply 1028, called “V+,” via node 1030, while the cathode of the same photodiode is returned via currentlimiting resistor 1093 to wire 1094, labeled “Pclamp” for the logic level associated with the clamp operation as part of the Ping circuit. This logic level is provided by a microprocessor pin, possibly via a buffer, with a low logic level turning on the optical switch and connecting diode 1096 to recirculate drive winding current with a minimum of voltage drop. Then the “Pclamp” logic level on 1094 goes high, cutting off photodiode current, then optical switch 1087 opens, preventing current flow through 1096. Inductively sustained current is then forced in the forward direction from node 1086 and the anode of diode 1097 through to the cathode of 1097, and from there to the cathode of zener diode 1091 and in the zenerdrop direction of 1091 to the anode of 1091, which is connected to positive battery terminal 1029. Thus, causing Pclamp to go high forces recirculating drive cutrent to pass through the braking path of zener 1096, reducing the current level quickly. Capacitor 1063 is connected in parallel with the drive winding except for optical switch 1087, whose turning off effectively eliminates the capacitor from the circuit. Specifically, one terminal of 1063 connects to battery positive terminal node 1029, the opposite terminal or 1063 connects to a lead of the bidirectional optical FET in optical switch 1087, and the other optical FET lead connects to node 1086. The photodiode in switch 1087 has its anode connected to the regulated positive supply at node 1030, with the cathode connected via current limiting resistor 1067 to wire 1065, which is energized by the logic level labeled “Pcap” for Ping capacitor. When Pcap goes high, no photodiode current flows and capacitor 1063 has no significant effect on the drive winding, while a low logic level at Pcap and 1065 drives photodiode conduction, turning on the FET and connecting capacitor 1063 in parallel with the drive winding.
Pings, or resonant ringing signals, in the resonant circuit consisting of the drive winding and capacitor 1063, become energized in several ways. If current has been driven via drive FET 1085 and decays slowly via 1096, and if switch 1087 is switched on during this conduction period, then a lowlevel ping will occur as decaying conduction through 1096 comes to a stop, with a first peak at less than the shottky forward bias of 1096. If 1096 is isolated by an off state in switch 1088, causing current to decay rapidly through the zener circuit via 1091, then the cessation or zener current will be accompanied by a much higher level ping, with the first AC peak somewhat below the sum or the zener drop plus the forward drop of diode 1097. For a controlled ping amplitude, current may be stopped by the braking of zener 1091 before the capacitor path is connected through onstate switch 1087, after which current pulses may be applied via the high impedance current source circuit source circuit consisting of FET 1099 and amplifier 1090. The drain of 1099 is connected to node 1086 while the source of 1099 is connected via currentscaling resistor 1021 to the common ground at label 1025. The node common to the FET source and resistor 1021 is connected to the inverting input of 1090, resulting in a feedback voltage precisely proportional to the drain current of 1099. The noninverting input of 1090 at node 1001 is biased via resistor 1017 to ground at 1025 and via resistor 1009 to the negative supply labeled “V−” indicated on wire 1013. This negative supply may be provided, e.g., by a switching inverter operating from the positive battery voltage “Vb” from 1029. The bias level to the noninverting input of 1090 is varied by two logic levels: “Ping1” on wire 1098 and via resistor 1005 to node 1001; and “Ping2” on wire 1008 and via resistor 1015 to node 1001. Like “Pcap” and “Pclamp,” the signals “Ping1” and “Ping2” are logic levels either directly on microprocessor pins or obtained via buffers, swinging between ground potential and a positive logic supply voltage, e.g., “V+” at 1028. When Ping1 and Ping2 are both low, the current source is off because of the negative bias via 1009 from 1013. For combinations with one or both of Ping1 and Ping2 being high, resistor ratios are chosen to give desired choices of bias voltages and current source output levels. Switching between current levels (including zero) either as steps or as pulses can be used for dual purposes: to excite ringing for frequency determination, and to maintain a chosen magnetic force in the solenoid armature. By varying force bias and measuring changes in ping frequency, the circuitry is used to measure mechanical impedance of devices driven by the solenoid, including to determine compliance due to the presence of bubbles in a solenoiddriven pump.
Unlike solenoid servo circuits of earlier figures, the circuit of
As mentioned, the buffered induced voltage signal on 1024 is positive when drive transistor 1085 is off and current is decaying in the drive winding. In the case where optical itch 1088 is on and the “slow decay” mode is active, the signal on 1624 varies with the sw resistive voltage I*R, and this currentindicating signal passes via the anode of shottky diode 1033 to the cathode of that diode, then via small resistor 1036 to node 1058 and to the source of FET 1056. When 1056 is on, the signal via 1033 and 1036 conducts to the drain of 1056 and on to node 1069 and sample/hold capacitor 1062, whose opposite terminal is grounded. FET 1056 is switched on when FET 1085 is off, so that 1062 is connected for bandlimited sampling (with bandwidth limit set in part by resistor 1036) of the current signal, I·R, from buffer 1020. When the drive coil is actively driven and induced voltage is not an indication of current alone, the signal on 1024 is negative, 1033 is reversebased, FET 1056 is off, and the drain of 1056 points toward the positive sampled voltage, preventing leakage of the sampling capacitor charge back via resistor 1054 to ground. From node 1058, resistor 1054 to ground at 1039 provides a discharge path for capacitor 1062 when the current signal level is decreasing from one sample period to the next, thus allowing the output of the sample/hold circuit to decrease. Amplifier 1060 serves as a unity buffer for the sampled voltage, with its noninverting input connected to capacitor 1062 at node 1068, and with ks output connected via no, c 1064 to its own inverting input and to two output paths. One such path, representing proportional gain of the current signal, is via resistor 1066 to the inverting input of comparator 1079, whose input also includes a programmable bias from a digital/analog converter or “DAC’ consisting of the group of four resistors 1050 driven by the four bits of the DAC input signal, on bit lines collectively labeled 1048 and individually labeled MAU,” MAC I,” “DAC2,” and “DAC3.” The other signal path for the current sample/hold signal is via phase lead capacitor 1070 and bandlimit resistor 1071, wired in series to the inverting input of differentiation amplifier 1076, The noninverting input of 1076 is grounded, while the feedback from the output on node 1075 consists of parallel gainsetting resistor 1074 and bandlimiting capacitor 1072, both wired to inverting input node 1073 and the input from 1070 series 1071. The differentiator output on 1075 sums via resistor 1077 to the noninverting input of comparator 1079, along with another input signal via resistor 1046 and a regenerative or hysteresis feedback signal via large resistor 1080 From the output of 1079 on node 1081.
Leaving the “current” or I.R” signal path momentarily and returning to the overall induced signal path, the output of 1020 on node 1024 sums via resistor 1026 into the inverting input node 1037 of inverting integrator amplifier 1032. Integrating feedback is achieved by feedback capacitor 1038 from output node 1044 of 1032 back to input node 1037. This capacitor can be shorted by FET 1042, whose drain connects to op amp output node 1044 and whose source connects to input node 1037, thus being wired for a normallypositive integrator output. Shorting via onstate FET 1042 resets and holds the integrator output to nearly zero volts whenever the signal “OFF” at 1041, and communicating via node 1043 to the FET gate, is high. Two other signals sum to the integrator input at 1037: a negative bias from negative supply 1003, “V−,” via resistor 1002 to 1037, and a logic level via resistor 1016 to 1037 from node 1014, which is the output of NOR gate 1012.
We now consider circuit operation for combinations of logical levels 1041 and 1011, “OFF” and “OPEN.” First consider the “normal” situation where “OPEN” on 1011 is low, i.e., no call to open the solenoid. When “OFF” on 1041 and via 1043 is high, integrator 1032 is initialized to zero. At the same time, the high “OFF” signal is applied via 1043 to one of the two inputs to NOR gate 1082, forcing that NOR output low on 1083. 1083 connects to the gate of drive transistor 1085, forcing it off. 1083 also connects to both inputs of NOR gate 1084, which acts as a logic inverter. The output of 1084 drives, via node 1052, the gate of sample/hold FET 1056, thus causing that FET to be on, sampling, when FET 1085 is off, and vice versa, off, holding, when 1085 is on and driving the drive winding. 1052 also connects to one of the inputs of NOR gate 1012. With “OPEN” on 1011 and 1010 in its “normal” low state, NOR gate 1012 behaves like an inverter to the signal on 1052, so that the signal on node 1014 at the output of 1012 reflects the state of driver FET 1085, namely, high when 1085 is on and low when 1085 is off. When “OFF” on 1041 and via 1043 is high, as discussed, driver FET 1085 is kept off, and the integrator is initialized. When “OFF” goes low, the softlanding feedback loop is activated. Drive FET 1085 is enabled to follow the inverse of comparator output from 1079 via 1081, turning off when the comparator output is high and on when the comparator output is low. In this case, the signal summation into integrator 1032 is analogous to the summation into integrator 932 of
Circuit operation is simplest when the sampled current feedback path via FET 1056 is deactivated, e.g., by removing diode 1033, and when integrating duty cycle feedback is deactivated, e.g., by removing resistors 1002 and 1016. In this situation, the integral output on 1044 represents total magnetic flux, and is compared to the DAC voltage on the inverting input of comparator 1079. An increase in flux is indicated by an increase in the integrator output on 1044, which via resistor 1046 communicates to the noninverting input of comparator 1079 and tends to drive the comparator output high. The inversion of the comparator signal at NOR gate 1082 results in FET 1085 being turned off, initiating a rate of decrease in magnetic flux. Thus, the simplest circuit operation maintains constant flux, resulting in a magnetic force field that increases somewhat with decreasing magnetic gap X. The force increase is moderate even as X tends to zero. The transient response of the servo system under these conditions is a damped sinusoid in X, except that a very lowrate mechanical spring may fail to overcome the slightly destabilizing effect of magnetic force variation with gap, so that divergence to fullopen or fullclose is possible. The other feedback loops, dependent on sampled coil current and on the integral of duty cycle, may be used to provide an approximation of velocity damping, provide a stabilizing springlike magnetic force, and provide longterm rebiasing of flux to drive X to a value in equilibrium with a target duty cycle. As with the circuits of
The “PID” signals (of Proportional, Integral, and Derivative feedbacks) added to the dynamics of the basic flux servo circuit (described above) include the duty cycle integral (a sort of integral feedback of position error), plus the value of sample current (generating a stabilizing magnetic spring rate) and the timederivative of sampled current, providing limited levels of approximate velocity damping. The proportional feedback of the current signal via resistor 1066 may be set to zero by setting the resistance of 1066 to infinity (i.e. open). If the mechanical spring rate encountered by the solenoid armature is low, then the relatively small change of magnetic force with respect to solenoid position at constant flux may be sufficiently large, and destabilizing, to overcome the stabilization of the mechanical spring. In that case, stability can be achieved by proportional feedback of the drive current signal via resistor 1066. The polarity of this feedback would appear to be regenerative, since an increase in the current signal from 1064 via 1066 drives the comparator output low, which via the inversion of NAND gate 1082 drives FET 1085 on, which tends to further increase current. Consider, however, the tendency of current, in the short term, to be driven by magnetic gap width X, so that reducing X drives current down and increasing X drive's current up. Further, with a weak or approximately constantforce spring, a more or less constant magnetic force demands a lower current at a lower gap X and a higher current at a higher gap X. One can say that the proportional current feedback via 1066 rebiases this equilibrium relationship so that at lower current, indicating reduced gap X, current is driven still lower than it would have been without feedback via 1066, thus reducing the magnetic force of attraction and making X (end to increase. Conversely, a higher current, indicating increased X, causes current to be driven even higher, increasing magnetic attraction and tending to close X A little bit of feedback across 1066 thus acts like a stabilizing mechanical spring, and both simulation and experiment with the closedloop circuit confirms that soft landing with a nearly constantforce mechanical spring is made possible, using the circuit of
Consider finally events accompanying the setting of “OPEN” on 1011 and 1010 to a high logic level. “OPEN” is normally kept low until soft landing and stable hovering are accomplished, with “OFF,” being held low. In certain applications it is desirable to reopen a nearly closed solenoid smoothly, somewhat slowly, and under servo control. One reason is to reduce the noise thump of opening. Another reason is to allow a solenoiddriven fluid control valve to close somewhat slowly to avoid fluid cavitation. When “OPEN” goes high with a nearly closed solenoid, the action of NOR gate 1012 is to inhibit the duty cycle feedback path that established all equilibrium gap X, forcing the duty cycle signal on 1014 to remain low. This leaves the bias current from resistor 1002 unbalanced by a duty cycle. The servo circuit will behave as if the magnetic gap X had shrunk to zero and will respond with a progressive increase in the target signal for magnetic flux. More particularly, the negative signal via resistor 1002 will be inverted on integration to produce a positivegoing ramp on 1044. As the feedback loop responds, the primary effect is to produce a negativegoing ramp in magnetic flux, which via coil 1007 and follower output signal 1024 will generate a positive current through 1026 offsetting the negative current through 1002. The “target” for magnetic flux is thus driven toward zero in a linear ramp, with some modification caused by the action of the sampled current feedback path. The immediate effect of switching “OPEN” to a high state is to drive the comparator Output on 1081 high a larger fraction of the time, which will reduce the “on” duty cycle of FET 1085 and thus initiate a re opening of the solenoid gap. Feedback derived from sense coil 1007 will balance the openloop tendency and result in a smooth and progressive reduction in solenoid magnetic force and a corresponding smooth opening. The reopening rate can be decreased by connecting a resistor between node 1010 and node 1037, thus causing the high logic level on 1010 to partially offset the negative bias current via resistor 1002. The reopening rate can similarly be increased by inverting the signal on 1010 and applying that inverted signal via a resistor to node 1037. Without such modification, the rate reopening under servo control will correlate with the rate time constant set for integral feedback response to pulse duty cycle.
Examining circuit operation, an initial bias from the DAC at the inverting comparator input drives Vd high. Until Vd spikes low, there is no sampled current feedback on traces 1130 and 1140. After a few milliseconds, the increase in flux Phi on trace 1180 causes Vd to spike low, but this spike is reversed, and Vd is driven immediately high again, by the feedback paths involving sampled current, traces 1130 and 1140. During this “launch” phase, the flux target is driven regeneratively upward and the drive pulse on 1110 continues with little interruption. The regenerative feedback eventually runs its course and the system proceeds into a “trajectory” phase with Vd low and the combination of magnetic and kinetic energies carrying the solenoid shuttle toward magnetic closure. The rebound from maximum closure brings the corrective feedback processes into play, resulting in a time varying pulse duty cycle on Vd and a settling of the system. If the DAC bias is set higher, the solenoid bumps at full closure, while a lower DAC bias causes the solenoid to undershoot, well short of full closure, and pull closed more gradually with a substantial increase in energy consumption. The traces shown represent roughly the minimum energy setting for the DAC bias. It is possible to adjust the circuit parameters for less pulse duty cycle integral feedback and more sampled current feedback, resulting in closure with little or no overshoot and no continued ringing. When the system is adjusted this way, it has a very narrow margin of stability when load forces are varied, and small errors in setting the DAC bias, either too high or too low, result in instability and chatter of the solenoid. The adjustments illustrated in
Magnetic force F_{m }varies roughly according to the equation: F_{m}/denom=(I/X)^{2}, where gap X is approximated by the signal “I>0,” and denom is a denominator scaling constant. This magnetic force should match the target force F appearing in logarithmic scaling on the output of 1204. Setting F_{m}=F and multiplying through the Xsquared denominator yields the expression:
F·X ^{2}=denom·I ^{2}
Taking the log of both sides of this equation and substituting I>0 for X yields:
log(F)+2·log(I>0)=log(denom)+2·log(I)
The factors of 1 and 2 for linear and square terms are provided by the ratios of resistors 1232 and 1233 from amps 1202 and 1203, labeled “R” for resistance R, and resistors 1231 and 1234 from amps 1201 and 1204, labeled “2R” for double the resistance at 2R, giving therefore half the weighting of the terms associated with the onetimes resistance R. The sides of 1231 and 1232 away from the log amps join at node 1218, connecting to the inverting input of comparator 1220, whiles the sides of 1233 and 1234 away from the log amps join at node 1219, connecting to the noninverting input of comparator 1220. The output of 1220 on node 1230 feeds back via large resistor 1241 to give a small regenerative feedback to the noninverting comparator input, giving clean switching between high and low states of the drive signal on 1230, indicated by trace 1240 labeled “Vd:” and representing the variabledutycycle drive pulse train going to the gate of FET 1242. The log comparison imbalance thus generates an oscillation at variable duty cycle that dynamically balances the equations and causes the square of flux, generating force, to track the PID motion equation very tightly after a typical initial period of stewing when a circuit is first activated. Completing the circuit, computer 1223 provides output on bus 1224 to set the digital/analog converters 1225 and 1227. Two singlebit digital output from 1223 on lines 1225 and 1227 couple via two pairs of seriesconnected diodes, 1226 for the pair from 1225, and 1228 for the pair from 1227. Current can flow in the anodetocathode direction through pair 1226 from 1225 to 1218 and the inverting input of 1220, so that a high logic level on 1225 will overcome the forward bias threshold of the diodes and push the inverting input positive, forcing the comparator output low. Similarly, a high logic level on 1227 will force the noninverting comparator input positive, forcing the comparator output high. Thus, computer 1223 can force the initial launch of the solenoid. A potential problem arises if the feedback circuit, under slewing conditions, keeps Vd low, and the drive transistor turned off, for too long, for then the sampling of the position sense signal on 1210 is interrupted. A train of short pulses from computer output 1227 can enforce a minimum frequency of sampling updates, keeping the feedback loop closed.
Observe that all the bending in the spring described here is “planar” or “cylindrical,” meaning that local curvature is always tangent to some cylinder whose axis is parallel to the original flat plane. This is in contrast to a flat spiral spring, which is forced to twist with large axial perturbations unless each loop of the spiral makes a full 360 degree are (or multiple 360 degree arcs) between inner and outer attachments. A thin strip of metal is much stiffer in torsion and inplane bending than in cylindrical bending. In a flat spiral spring, the initial bending with small departures from a flat plane takes the form of cylindrical bending, since that is the “path of least resistance.” At large axial perturbations, as the cosine of the slope of the spiral arms becomes significantly less than 1.0, the center section of a spiral spring is forced to rotate, which in combination with the axial displacement results in twisting and inplane bending of the flat spring. The overall result is a nonlinear increase in axial force. By comparison, the spring illustrated here does not tend to rotate with axial displacement and has a significantly larger linear range than a comparable spiral spring.
Screw cap 1332 clamps the inside of the lower spring 1322 to core 1340, while lower housing cap 1312 clamps the perimeter of 1322 to the lower inside of outer housing 1380. Similarly, screw cap 1331 clamps the inside of upper spring 1321 to core 1340, while upper housing cap 1311 clamps the perimeter of 1321 to the upper inside of outer housing 1380. Rigid parallel alignment of the pot core halves is important, since the slope between the mating surfaces results in an asymmetric concentration of magnetic flux and force, accentuating the departure from parallel alignment if the guide is not rigid. To establish precise parallelism at closure, one method is to allow for some slop at the outer perimeters of the springs, then to fill the outer clamp areas with adhesive, then to force the core halves together so that they are necessarily parallel, and finally to cure the adhesive (e.g., using ultraviolet Curing adhesive), Fixing the springs in their intended final positions as the core halves mate.
The windings for the solenoid are indicated in views 1300 and 1310 by schematic “X” shapes for winding crosssections, with thick inner winding 1360 and thin outer winding 1370 Filling bobbin 1350. View 1315 shows the cut ends of the wires. The thick winding would typically be the drive winding, and the thin winding the sense winding, if a sense winding is required by the servo circuit chosen. View 1315 does not show certain details, e.g., the threading of end caps 1331 and 1332 into central shaft 1340, the three components appearing as a single cutaway object in view 1315. Note that end caps 1311 and 1312 of view 1300 are shown with an annular center section cut out for view 1315.
The inlet valve solenoid at 1430 and the outlet valve solenoid at 1440 are like the solenoid illustrated in
The pumping and fluid metering action to be described below is similar to the operation of the invention described in Applicant's U.S. Pat. No. 5,624,409, “Variable Pulse Dynamic Fluid Flow Controller,” sharing with that invention the use of valve timing synchronized to the natural periodicity of fluid flow into and out of a container having fluid volume compliance, so that flow can be maximized in a resonant pumping mode, or controlled in very smallvolume fluid pulses utilizing a combination of valve timing and fluid inertia to give a nonlinear flow regulation affording a very wide dynamic range of delivered pulse volumes. The operation described here shares the fluid volume measurement function described in U.S. Pat. No. 5,624,409, except that in the invention described here, the measurement device doubles as the actuation device, i.e. the solenoid, in an active pump. The system of U.S. Pat. No. 5,624,409 was conceived as a passive metering device reliant on fluid motive force from a pressurized fluid source, unlike the active system described here.
When solenoid 1410 retracts, pulling foot 1404 back from the position drawn, the preload in the rubber dome generates a negative fluid pressure in the fluid beneath the dome, here shown as continuous through the outlet valve area on the right, around 1416, and continuous with the exiting fluid indicated at 1450 (fluid connections to the right of 1450 not being shown). Thus, in an inlet stroke, the valve on the right is closed and the valve on the left, around 1422, is opened, 1410 is energized, 1404 retracts and relieves the downward force on 1415, dome 1415 responds by expanding upward toward its original molded shaped and generates a negative pressure underneath, drawing fluid in from the inlet fluid at 1420 (fluid connections to the left of 1420 not being shown). Typically 1404 retracts faster than inlet fluid can follow, and the pump solenoid softlands under servo control and holds near closure fluid comes through the inlet to fill in under dome 1415 and allow that dome to catch up with foot 1404. With optimum timing, the valve around 1422 closes just as the kinetic energy of incoming fluid has paid out fully in fluid volume overshoot and flow has come to a complete halt. One timing method causes 1410 to be deenergized a few milliseconds before the inward fluid flow through the inlet valve has come to a halt, at which time 1410 is retracted with its magnetic gap as close as practical to full closure and mechanical contact, i.e. hovering under servo control at a minimal gap. The springs In 1410 at this point resemble the springs illustrated for solenoid views 1440, 1310, and 1315. As the current and magnetic field decay in 1410, the decay of magnetic force ceases to counterbalance the downward spinning force, so that foot 1404 would be inclined to start dropping. With proper timing in relation to the momentum of incoming fluid, however, the buildup of fluid pressure under dome 1415 will roughly counterbalance the increase in downward force on 1404, so that as fluid flow comes to a halt, fluid pressure will reach its maximum in balance with the suspension springs of 1410, and 1404 will barely move during the final decay of solenoid current and synchronized buildup of fluid pressure. The drive to 1430 is removed in anticipation of a slightly delayed mechanical response bring about fluid shutoff at just about the moment when fluid flow stops and would reverse if the valve were to remain open.
Bubble detection can proceed at the end of a fluid fill stroke, when both valves are closed, by at least two distinct approaches. By a “static” approach, a high impedance solenoid current source circuit, such as is illustrated in
Once inlet fluid is captured under dome 1415 and ping measurements have performed any needed bubble checking and determined a resting position measurement of X and, by calibration, the associated fluid volume, then fluid can be released via the valve around 1416 and through the port at 1450 to delivery tubing and a delivery site not shown. As described in Applicant's U.S. Pat. No. 5,624,409, fluid can be released in small pulses or in a maximumvolume bolus, with the outlet valve opening timed to last for approximately on half the natural oscillation period of the outlet path, taking account of fluid inertia and compliance particularly of the volume under 1415 coupled with the spring suspension of 1410. Depending on tubing length and diameter and the nature of the fluidreceiving load, there may be significant overshoot to the expulsion of fluid from under 1415.
Examining fluid cassette 1400 in more detail, small rubber dome 1414 on the left is similar to dome 1415 except that its convex surface faces inward to the contained fluid, as is the case with similar dome 1432 on the right. The three domes are clamped between upper plastic housing pieces 1413 and 1412, which are continuous across the top of the cassette from the far left to the far right, even though holes in the plastic lying at the plane of the elevation section view cause the sections of tipper housing to appear to be discontinuous. The different hatching pattern on 1413 and 1412 shows which parts viewed in section belong to which whole piece of plastic. Observe that piece 1412 forms a circular ridge coming up under the annular bulge in dome 1414, and similarly under dome 1432 The right hand circular ridge is seen to be separated from dome 1432 at the gap indicated by 1460, and around that perimeter. Thus, the right hand valve is shown open. All fluid contiguous with 1420 is hatched with vertical dashes, while fluid contiguous with 1450 through the opened outlet valve is hatched with horizontal dashes. Observe that this outlet fluid is continuous around the outer perimeter of dome 1414, being seen in all only apparently isolated area just below and to the left of 1414. Bottom plastic piece 1411 of cassette 1400 is bonded to 1412 out of the section plane of the figure and, in the viewed section, just below the inside edges of the circular valve ridges, supporting the ridges at the part of their perimeter where a gap in 1412 allows fluid flow to communicate from the outer perimeters of domes 1414 and 1432 into the central fluid reservoir under dome 1415. A valve actuation linkage is seen formed in piece 1411 at pusher cycle cylinder 1422, which is field up against dome 1414 by force exerted from cap 1401 of the inlet valve solenoid. The thin curving annulus 1418 makes a flexible rolling seal for permitting axial motion of plug 1422 while maintaining a fluid seal. This flexing seal is comparable to the shape found around the perimeters of audio loudspeaker cones. On the right, cylinder 1416 is seen pushed up by actuator cap 1403, and the deformation of the flexible seal around the bottom of 1416 is evident by comparison with 1418. The upward thrust of 1416 is seen to unseat the ring or contact between dome 1432 and the circular valve ridge formed in piece 1412, opening the valve. The valves are held closed by preload in the rubber of dome areas 1414 and 1432, pushing down on the circular ridges. Thrust cylinders 1422 and 1416 are always pushing upward when the cassette is loaded in contact with the valve actuators, as indicated by the stretching of the flat spring in solenoid 1430. Energizing a valve solenoid adds magnetic force, increasing that upward thrust and caving the dome center sufficiently to cause an annular opening around the circular ridge seal. When the cassette is removed from contact with the valve actuators, cylinders 1422 and 1416 are pushed down by rubber domes 1414 and 1432 until, at maximum extension, the rolling seal sections at 1418 and the comparable section on the outlet side are stretched into conical surfaces extending down, with little preload remaining in the valve domes. Thus, it is seen that coupling the cassette to the valve actuators moves the valve domes to a shape, in dynamic balance with the valve actuator spring, partway toward opening, so that a relatively small magnetic thrust force and small motion suffice to open a valve. The first fraction of the powered solenoid thrust, e.g. the first third, stretches the dome, while the second fraction of travel opens the valve. The gap opened up, e.g. at 1460, is less than the second fraction of solenoid travel, e.g. half of that second fraction, so that by this example, a total valve thrust of 0.024 inches would initiate valve opening after 0.008 inches, and over the next 0.016 inches of actuator travel the valve gap would open by 0.008 inches, quite sufficient for flow in a medical disposable.
The effect of fluid pressures on valve operation in cassette 1400 is a significant issue for smooth operation without sudden closure and cavitation. The effective displacement areas subject to force from fluid pressure are preferably matched between flex area 1418 and fluidexposed dome area 1414, and comparably for the flex area opposing dome 1432. Dividing pressure effects into differential pressure effects, related to the pressure difference across a valve, and common mode pressure effects, related to the average of the pressures on either side of a valve, the intent of this design is to minimize the effect of common mode pressure. An increase in common mode pressure pushes down on cylinder 1422 via pressure excited on 1418, but the pressure partially unloads the dome force whereby 1414 pushes down on 1422. Thus, a change in common mode fluid pressure has only a minor effect on actuator position. When a valve, e.g. the inlet valve, is closed, the displacement area on the inner annulus or 1414 is less than the displacement area at the same pressure on 1418, so that a positive increase in inlet fluid pressure from 1420 would tend to push 1422 down, keeping the valve closed. A negative pressure communicated from the volume under dome 1415 would reduce the upward force on 1414, again tending to close the valve. Thus, a differential pressure going positive to negative from inlet to pump chamber tends to close the inlet valve, and conversely, an outwarddirected pressure differential tends to open the inlet valve. The valve can thus be compared to a fluid diode with a relatively low forward cracking pressure and a much higher cracking pressure, associated with the total positive pressure tending to cave dome 1414 in and cause the dome to lose contact with thrust cylinder 1422. If the inlet valve is thrust open by solenoid actuation and begins to close in the presence of fluid flow, it will tend to slam shut abruptly as an increasing pressure differential across the closing valve drives the valve toward further closure. This regenerative closure action is absent for flow in the opposite direction, from pump chamber to source, since the developing pressure differential across the valve tends to keep the valve open. The outlet valve performs similarly, tending to close smoothly, providing a continuous braking action to outward fluid flow as solenoid actuator force is reduced. Recalling the response of the servo circuit of
The sequence just described is modified according to desired fluid delivery rate and current progress relative to the timevarying target for total delivered fluid. Longterm cumulative volume is always based on volume difference from just before to just after an inlet stroke, so that uncertainties of longterm drift in the volume estimation are minimized. For a high delivery rate, a maximum volume intake is followed by a maximum volume delivery, each with a flow pulse timed to the natural halfperiod of oscillatory flow on the inlet or outlet side (unless, e.g., the outlet flow dynamics are more than critically damped, in which case the “ideal” outlet flow pulse interval is less well defined.) For a lower delivery rate, the outlet flow pulse is interrupted by valve closure in early to mid course, before a maximum volume has been delivered, and the fluid energy available from the pump chamber, amounting to spring energy stored in the suspension of 1410, is paid out over two or more pulses. It is in this form of operation that smooth release of the valve actuator, and inherently smooth, nonregenerative action of the fluid valve, are essential to quiet operation without cavitation bubbles.
In addition to the operating modes just described, a “firehose” operating mode is possible with the hardware of FIG. 14. Ideally the inlet fluid connection from 1420 has a low impedance, both low resistance and low fluid inertia, so that fluid can be drawn in quick pulses. The outlet connection from 1450 typically has a much higher impedance, including the substantial inertia of fluid in along tube. Consequently, the natural period for fluid oscillation involving inertia and the spring rate of the pumping chamber is much slower for the outlet side than for the inlet of the pump system described here. Firehose mode pumping begins with a fill pulse, as described in steps 1 through 7 above. The outlet valve is then opened and maintained open continuously. As the pump chamber begins to be depleted and fluid pressure is dropping, refill steps 1 through 7 are repeated while outlet flow is ongoing. With sufficient momentum in the outlet line, the negative pressure spikes to pull more fluid into the pump chamber will not last long enough to halt the outlet flow, so that continuous flow will be maintained as the inlet and pump valves cyclically recharge the pump chamber. Volume cannot be tracked as accurately in this mode, since inlet and outlet flow overlap in time. Volume can be estimated from the dynamics of pumping performance. In typical medical infusion applications, volumetric measurement and control are of secondary importance when a maximum rate delivery mode is invoked.
The primary difference between the system of FIG. 15 and that of
The increased value of effective gap X arising from the inclusion of permanent magnets implies that more coil current must be used to vary the magnetic field than would be required if the permanent magnetic material were filled with a highpermeability transformertype of material. If the major power requirement is for static holding, then using a permanent magnet to offset DC electric power is well worth the sacrifice in AC efficiency. In a magnetic propulsion system to be explained below, however, large AC field variations are employed to effect propulsion, as the steady DC work of lifting is taken over by permanent magnets. To minimize AC power consumption in such all application, the permanent magnet material should be configured, in the geometry, to be thin and spread out over a wide area, so as to offer a low dynamic reluctance to the magnetic path, where reluctance varies as the ratio oflength along the magnetic path divided by area. This geometric proportioning implies that the permanent magnet material will operate at a low permeance coefficient, which is equivalent to saying that the material will experience a high steady demagnetizing Hfield. The factor for increased AC current needed to generate a given AC field strength, due to the addition of permanent magnet material, is given very roughly by 1+Pc, where Pc is the steady permeance coefficient at which the permanent magnet operates in the magnetic circuit. The highest energy product for a permanent magnet is obtained at a Pc of about 1.0, implying a doubling of AC current and a quadrupling of AC power for a given AC flux excitation, compared to operation with no permanent magnet. Most permanent magnets are operate at a Pc greater than 1, but in contexts to be described for magnetic levitation and propulsion, values of Pc of 0.5 or less are desirable. While a low Pc implies a high steady demagnetizing Hfield, the application of AC coil power will cause higher peaks in the demagnetizing Hfield, driving the net flux in the permanent magnet material dynamically to nearly zero. The material chosen for such an application must necessarily have a high coercive force so that the material will not be depoled by the stresses of operation. Furthermore, for a relatively thin layer of permanent magnet material to be effective at generating a field bias, the material must have a high poling strength, which amounts to saying that the residual Bfield, Br, needs to be high. The highest available energyproduct Neodymium Iron Boron magnet materials have high Br, exceeding 1 Tesla, but not a high enough coercive force to operate at very low permeance coefficients, with additional AC field variation, without significant loss of strength. Formulations optimizing high coercive force are to be sought for good performance under the conditions described. The amount of material required will exceed the minimum that would merely produced the needed lifting force over a given gap, if the design is further optimized for efficient AC performance. These expense compromises will, however, pay off richly in achievement of a very efficient lifting and propulsive magnetic motor, as will be seen.
Note that the modifications to the circuit of
The servo systems described above control one axis of motion. The inherent instability of magnetic alignment has been noted, and a spring suspension system for rigid alignment control has been described. One can correct the alignment of an object by the same techniques used to control position, sometimes with simplifications over the general servo control problem. Consider a solenoid fabricated from standard “EI” core parts, where the Ecore is the stator and the lighter 1core is the armature, drawn to the Ecore. As the 1 approaches the E, any tilt placing one end of the 1 closer to the E than the other end will cause a concentration of magnetic flux across the narrower gap. For small alignment errors and no core saturation, the destabilizing magnetic/mechanical spring rate is given roughly by the total force of attraction between the E and the 1, multiplied by the cube of the distance between the centers of the center and end mating surfaces of the E, and divided by the square of the average gap. This destabilization can overcome very stiff suspensions near closure. Magnetic alignment correction becomes more precise as the gap becomes smaller, with no singularity in the servo loop as the gap approaches zero if the total magnetic force is also under control.
Consider an Ecore with two pairs of windings: a force drive and force sense winding wound around the center prong of the E, and all alignment drive and alignment sense winding on each end prong of the E, the end windings being wired in series so that current flow is in the opposite rotation sense at either end, as with current going around a figure8 loop. Thus, after interconnecting the alignment windings, one has a pair of drive leads and a pair of sense leads coming back to the electronic controller, as with an ordinary drive and sense winding. The signal from the sense winding represents the rate of change of flux imbalance between the ends of the E, and the time integral of that signal represents the total flux imbalance. Merely shorting the asymmetry drive winding causes an electromechanical damping of the kind of rotation of the 1 relative to the E that generates unequal gaps, while shorting a superconductive figure8 winding around the ends of the E. would almost cancel the destabilizing torsional force. The circuit of
If conditions at the start of gap closure are nominally symmetric, i.e. when the initial asymmetry is small and unpredictable, then the best guess for the DAC output in
While a circuit of the topology of
The principles illustrated above find potential applications in heavyweight lifting, e.g., of a levitated monorail car suspended below a track. When a long object is suspended from a narrow rail, a twovariable suspension servo is required, to keep the car up and to keep it level from front to back. To provide fore and aft propulsive thrust and braking, the shape of the lower surface of the track is modified to include periodic waves of vertical ripple, varying the height of the track with variation in longitudinal position. Waves of variation in magnetic field strength are generated within electromagnets and their associated control modules arrayed along the length of the car, those waves being caused to travel backwards along the car at a velocity that synchronizes the waves that travel with respect to the car to the stationary vertical ripples in the track, so that a given portion of the track sees a relatively constant magnetic field strength during the passage of the car. Control of the phase and amplitude of the waves in magnetic field strength with respect to the waves of vertical ripple in the track will result in control of thrust or braking.
The suspension problem can be approached as two independent servos for the ends of the car, or as a levitation servo for common mode control and a symmetry servo for differential mode control. In either case, individual electromagnetic control and actuation modules, receiving individual fluxtarget inputs and providing individual positionindicating outputs (or currentindicating outputs, since current required to achieve a given magnetic flux is related to position, or magnetic gap), are controlled as groupings of inputs and outputs. Separate groupings control different degrees of freedom of the motion of the car, e.g., vertical height, fore and aft pitch angle error, and thrust or braking force. A generalized “position” signal associated with a degree of freedom of the motion of the car is represented as a weighted average or weighted sum over a grouping of control and actuation modules. Weighted sums applicable to the geometry of the suspension drawn near the top of
With active control of elevation and pitch, the degrees of freedom of lateral translation, yaw, and roll come to be regulated passively. If the fore and aft suspension magnets tend to selfcenter laterally because of their geometry, then lateral translation and yaw will be passively stable. For an object hanging below a track, gravity controls roll. For high speed operation of a rail car in wind and rounding corners, very effective damping of roll (i.e. of swinging below the rail) can be provided by active aerodynamic fins. Fore/aft position is not controlled in the static sense, being the direction of travel, but thrust and braking may be controlled by synchronization of traveling waves of magnetic flux to the waves of vertical height along the longitudinal dimension of the track, as explained above.
To minimize magnetic losses due to hysteresis and eddy currents in the track as the levitated system moves at high speed, the lifting electromagnets preferably generate fields laterally across the track, rather than fore and aft. The lifting electromagnets should abut each other so that their fields merge into a fairly uniform field over a substantial length of track, ideally over the entire length of the magnetic lifting system. The electromagnets cannot readily merge their fields “seamlessly” along the length of the car (although geometries of permanent and soft magnetic materials could greatly smooth the field), for some magnetic separation is required to isolate the different actuation signal strengths of the different magnets. The magnetic field induced in any part of the track goes from zero to a maximum and back to zero just once during the passage of the levitated car. The slight separation of the magnet sections will inevitably cause some ripple in field strength in a given part of the track during passage of the car, but large fluctuations and total field reversals are to be avoided.
If the magnetic flux were to travel longitudinally in the track, rather than laterally, then one of two undesirable situations would arise. If there were no flux reversals in a part of the track during the passage of the car, that would imply that all the magnet poles on one end of the car are North, while the poles on the other end of the car are South poles. Then a crosssection perpendicular to the track length of track would have to support the entire magnetic flux that lifts the car, as must the crosssection of the magnetic flux return path through the levitation system on the car. If the magnetic poles on top of the car were to alternate between North and South some number of times along the length of the car, this would cut down on the cumulative buildup of longitudinal flux in the track but would also generate flux reversals in any given portion or the track during the passage of the car. Avoiding the horns of this dilemma,
Returning to
While the motor sections 1600 through 1607 have been described as if lacking permanent magnet components, permanent magnets are readily integrated into the motor sections, thereby permitting cancellation of the DC component of electric current needed in the drive windings. An alternative motor section on geometry is illustrated in the upperleft region or
Calculations for practical vertical gaps to a suspending track (e.g., fluctuating between one and three centimeters) and a practical longitudinal wavelength (e.g., for 250 mile/hour propulsion with a track ripple wavelength on the order of 50 centimeters) and for a practical passenger car weight loading (e.g., on the order of 1000 pounds per longitudinal foot of the suspension system) indicate that the flux density bridging from the top of a component like bar 1619 to a component like surface 1614 of 1610, should be a comparatively small fraction of the saturation flux for iron, i.e. a comparatively small fraction of two Teslas. At higher flux densities, the concentration of force becomes so great as to demand a lateral width of a motor yoke piece such as 1629 that is not much larger (or even smaller) than the desired vertical gap to the track. For such a narrow lateral dimension, there is an excessive lateral leakage of flux, e.g., from 1619 directly across to 1617 and 1621, without much flux bridging vertically across to surface 1614 and through part of 1610. To prevent lateral shortcircuiting of flux without generation of lift, the lateral width of the motor cannot be too small in relation to the vertical gap, and by implication, the upper surfaces or the motor need to operated at flux densities well below the saturation of iron. For maximum efficiency of a drive coil generating vertical lift corrections and propulsion, the center of the coil should be made as small as possible, so that the average circumference per winding is minimized. It therefore pays to concentrate the flux from the broad flat bottom magnet of the figure up into a small cylinder of magnetic material through the winding center before the flux spreads out again at the top for travel across the vertical magnetic gap to the track. The crosssection of the winding core should be made as small as possible, short of driving the peak flux density up to the saturation level of the material. By making the best system use of the permanent magnet material at a low permeance coefficient and of the winding core operated close to saturation, electromagnetic propulsive efficiencies of a system like that described here can be brought well above 80% and even well above 90%, dependent strongly on system requirements such as the thrust/lift ratio.
While a propulsion system may bear no relationship to the levitating suspension system, it is advantageous to share the two subsystems in a single magnetic assembly, as now described. Let the bottom surface of the suspending rail include a periodic vertical ripple along the track length, as drawn, e.g., with a wavelength of onehalf meter and a peak amplitude of one centimeter with an average suspension gap of two centimeters, thus allowing a one centimeter minimum clearance at the ripple crests. (The ripple need not be smooth, but could consist of fine or coarse steps in track height, although coarse steps would generate more vibration harmonics in a motor than would a smooth ripple.) For control purposes, subdivide the signals associated with the magnetic actuation sections 1600 through 1607 into three functional groupings: a common mode grouping, with equal signal weighting and equal actuation to all the sections, for control of vertical height; a differential mode grouping, for a progression from negative to positive signal weighting and a similar progression for proportioning of actuation, for control of pitch; and a wave grouping, scaled to the ripple wavelength of the track, for generating traveling magnetic waves that engage the ripples In the track and generate propulsion. The wave grouping can divide the track wavelength by an integer, e.g., quarter wavelength for a fourphase propulsion system, though the electronics indicated in
The electronic schematic shown in the lower portion of
Examining first the differential mode or tiltcontrol outer feedback loop, position information Xi from 1636 communicates via output 1640 on bus 1642 to input 1646 into summing module 1648, which produces a single channel or scalar output on 1650 representing a weighted sum of the eight inputs. The weighting factor for each input is the input index minus the average of the set of eight indices, a factor whose values are −3.5, −2.5, −1.5, −0.5, 0.5, 1.5, 2.5, and 3.5, factors varying in proportion to the distance of a given module center from the center of the group of eight. The output on 1650 enters module 1652, labeled “PIDdiff” and generating the Proportional, Integral, Differential transfer function for closing the servo loop in its differential mode for tilt control. The output of 1652 via 1654 to module 1656, called Xdiff at 1656, generates a set of eight proportioned drive outputs with the same eight relative weighting factors used in module 1648, the outputs emerging via bus 1658 and connecting to an input of “SUM” module 1660. The differential mode signal, summed with other signals on each of the eight output leads from 1660 via bus 1644, provides eightwide input 1638 to module 1636, this input setting the set of target magnetic fluxes for the inner servo loop. Thus, a distribution of fluxes and magnetic forces is produced that dynamically corrects errors in levitating tilt.
The common mode levitation feedback path operates similarly to the differential mode path just described, but lacks the separate channel weighting factors. The Xi signals on bus 1642 communicate via input 1662 with summing module 1664, whose scalar output on 1665 varies in proportion to the effective magnetic gap X averaged over index “i” for the eight actuation modules. Unity difference amplifier 1666 accepts the 1665 signal as an input with +1 weighting and subtracts from this a target X, “Xtgt” on input wire 1668 and with −1 weighting as labeled. The difference or errorX signal from 1666 on 1670 connects to commonmode PIDcmd transfer function module 1672, whose operation is comparable to differential mode module 1652. The resulting output on eightwide bus 1674 is eight identical signals going into SUM module 1660 to sum with comparable differential and propulsion wave signals for output bus 1644 back to 1636.
The propulsion wave feedback path takes the Xi signal on 1642 to input 1676 into differencing module 1678, whose normal operating mode is give, on output line i, the difference between Xi+1 and Xi−1, i.e. an indication of the slope of effective magnetic gap X at module i as indicated by a signal difference between the adjacent modules fore and aft of module i. The exception not indicated in the labeling of 1678 is for end modules, where the slope estimate is based on an extrapolation from one side only rather than both sides. One can, for example, look at a signal difference one period down the row from the end, or the negative of a signal difference a half period down the row, to estimate the slope at an end module. The slope signals emerge from 1678 on a bus terminating at input 1680 to variable gain module 1682, where each input Ai from the bus at 1680 is multiplied by thrust coefficient B from input 1684, generating the eight gaincontrolled signals, Ai*B on 1686 to the input of SUM module 1660. One polarity of gain produces a positive magnetic thrust, while an opposite gain polarity produces negative thrust, resulting in regenerative magnetic braking. The three eightwide bus inputs to 1660 give a single eightwide output on 1644 to provide the eight target fluxes for the eight innerloop magnetic servo circuits collectively controlled by the three outerloop servos.
An alternative approach to actuator position sense and flux control weightings, for the thrust/braking degree of freedom, was mentioned above, namely, two sets of periodic sinusoidal and cosinusoidal weightings of position sense and flux control, extending over the entire set of control modules. A sinusoidal set of position weightings then drives a cosinusoidal set of flux control weightings, and a cosinusoidal set of position weightings drives a negative sinusoidal set of flux control weightings (as the derivative of the sine is the cosine and the derivative of the cosine is the negative sine), so that waves of field strength variation along the row of electromagnets are synchronized to slope variations in vertical height of the track in order to produce fore and aft actuation forces for thrust and braking.
In addition to the phaseshifted weighted output signals for producing thrust and braking, electromagnetic power can be conserved if the magnetic flux of individual electromagnetic modules is not forced to remain constant, but instead is allowed to vary inversely as the effective time varying gap (called X or Xeff throughout this Specification) for variations associated with track ripple. In effect, individual control modules should be operated to correct collective errors in height and fore/aft pitch angle, but should not be operated to minimize flux variations tending to occur in individual modules, in the absence of corrective application of AC coil power, due to track ripple. Thus, a twophase controller generating waves in flux strength, traveling along a row of electromagnetic modules, can be caused to generate inphase waves in target flux that minimize corresponding inphase waves of coil current (allowing the field to vary as it depends passively on the interaction of permanent magnets and a timevarying flux gap, as if the drive windings were absent or opencircuited), while simultaneously generating quadraturephase waves in target flux to generate desired thrust or braking forces. Alternatively, to minimize power squandered on unnecessary compensation for traveling waves of flux strength caused by track ripple, individual electromagnet control modules can be crosscoupled with neighbors so that flux perturbations of certain wavelengths do not cause either corrective current actuation or passively induced currents that would be impeded by electrical resistance and thus cause the kind of damping and energy loss associated with shorting the windings of permanent magnet motors. The action of such crosscoupling must then be reconciled with control to produce intentional actively driven waves of magnetic field strength for generation of thrust and braking.
It is noted that the wavelength and amplitude of vertical track ripple might be varied along the track length, e.g., to give a greater slope amplitude in regions where large forces will be required for accelerating and decelerating, rating near a stop, or for generating extra thrust to climb grades in the track, or to give a lesser slope amplitude in regions where less thrust or braking is required and where power losses are reduced by a reduction in track ripple slope. If the track is designed for variable ripple wavelength, then the control system over thrust and braking must be capable of adapting its groupings and weightings of control modules in order to adapt to changing track ripple wavelengths. Microprocessor control and DSP (Digital Signal Processor) control components are appropriate tools for implementation of such adaptive control over multiple modules.
Finally, various examples from prior art, e.g., Morishita (U.S. Pat. No. 5,477,788), teach a suspension system of springs and dampers to decouple the considerable inertia of the car from the lesser inertia of the levitation magnets. Control problems arise when individual electromagnets are independently suspended. A simpler system attaches all the electromagnets lifting a car to a single rigid frame, which in turn is decoupled from the car by a spring suspension. A mechanical suspension allows the lifting magnetic modules more easily to follow irregularities in the track, allowing the path of the car to be corrected more smoothly and slowly through the suspension. It is recognized that the control system must prevent modules from “fighting” one another “trying” to achieve some unachievable motion, e.g., as prevented by coupling of the modules to a rigid frame. In the scheme illustrated and discussed with reference to
In the suspension and control systems described earlier, control of magnetic flux has been preferred to control of current in the inner control loop of a motion control servo, since actuation force is more linearly related to flux (roughly as a square law of flux) than to current (roughly as tile of a ratio of current to inductance). Control of current, like control of flux, shares the advantage over voltage control of generating low phase lag in the servo loop. In the case of multiple magnetic actuators controlling a lesser number of degrees of freedom of a car, and where corrective actuation of modules to compensate for track ripple is undesired, a controller approach is to have individual magnet modules cause current to track a target current, as opposed to causing flux to track a target flux. Magnetic flux information is provided, e.g. from sense coils or Hall effect sensors, by the separate modules, but flux control is achieved at the level of groupings of actuators, rather than for individual actuators. At a higher tier of the system, translational and rotational motion is controlled via control ofgroupings of flux at in intermediate tier. Thus, a three tier control system controls current and measures flux at the module level, controls patterns of flux and/or force at the intermediate level, and controls position and rotation at the highest level. Such a control system directly avoids wasteful current responses to track ripple at the level of individual modules, whereas a twotier system with flux control at the lower tier relies on corrective compensation going from the group controller to the individual modules.
The systems described for solenoid control with soft landing can be applied to the control of automotive valves, resulting in the complete elimination of the cam shaft and mechanical valve lifters. With an automotive valve, one needs quick acceleration and deceleration of the valve, closure of the valve with a minimum of impact, and significant holding force for both open and closed positions. For tight servo control at closure, an advantageous solenoid configuration is normally open, held by spring bias, with mechanical valve closure taking place at a very small magnetic gap, where servo control is at its best precision. The nonlinear control systems of either
Claims (9)
Priority Applications (2)
Application Number  Priority Date  Filing Date  Title 

US08882945 US6208497B1 (en)  19970626  19970626  System and method for servo control of nonlinear electromagnetic actuators 
US09771892 US6942469B2 (en)  19970626  20010130  Solenoid cassette pump with servo controlled volume detection 
Applications Claiming Priority (7)
Application Number  Priority Date  Filing Date  Title 

US09771892 US6942469B2 (en)  19970626  20010130  Solenoid cassette pump with servo controlled volume detection 
EP20020737644 EP1356486A1 (en)  20010130  20020128  System and method for servo control of nonlinear electromagnetic actuators 
CA 2436155 CA2436155A1 (en)  20010130  20020128  System and method for servo control of nonlinear electromagnetic actuators 
PCT/US2002/002214 WO2002061780A1 (en)  20010130  20020128  System and method for servo control of nonlinear electromagnetic actuators 
KR20037010079A KR20030084915A (en)  20010130  20020128  System and method for servo control of nonlinear electromagnetic actuators 
JP2002561853A JP2004525592A (en)  20010130  20020128  Servo control system and method for nonlinear electromagnetic actuator 
US11149343 US20060171091A1 (en)  19970626  20050609  System and method for servo control of nonlinear electromagnetic actuators 
Publications (2)
Publication Number  Publication Date 

US20010043450A1 true US20010043450A1 (en)  20011122 
US6942469B2 true US6942469B2 (en)  20050913 
Family
ID=25093260
Family Applications (2)
Application Number  Title  Priority Date  Filing Date 

US09771892 Expired  Fee Related US6942469B2 (en)  19970626  20010130  Solenoid cassette pump with servo controlled volume detection 
US11149343 Abandoned US20060171091A1 (en)  19970626  20050609  System and method for servo control of nonlinear electromagnetic actuators 
Family Applications After (1)
Application Number  Title  Priority Date  Filing Date 

US11149343 Abandoned US20060171091A1 (en)  19970626  20050609  System and method for servo control of nonlinear electromagnetic actuators 
Country Status (6)
Country  Link 

US (2)  US6942469B2 (en) 
EP (1)  EP1356486A1 (en) 
JP (1)  JP2004525592A (en) 
KR (1)  KR20030084915A (en) 
CA (1)  CA2436155A1 (en) 
WO (1)  WO2002061780A1 (en) 
Cited By (21)
Publication number  Priority date  Publication date  Assignee  Title 

US20050103902A1 (en) *  20011013  20050519  Hornsell David A.  Solenoid valve 
US20070009266A1 (en) *  20050707  20070111  Andrew Bothwell  Multimode optical fibre communication system 
US20070067127A1 (en) *  20050920  20070322  Siemens Aktiengesellschaft  Device and method for detecting an end of a movement of a valve piston in a valve 
US20080294098A1 (en) *  20070522  20081127  Medtronic, Inc.  End of stroke detection for electromagnetic pump 
US20090213520A1 (en) *  20080222  20090827  Baxter International Inc.  Medical fluid machine having solenoid control system with reduced hold current 
US20090302980A1 (en) *  20060825  20091210  Siemens Aktiengesellschaft  Electromagnetic Drive Unit and an Electomechanical Switching Device 
US20100308243A1 (en) *  20090605  20101209  Baxter International Inc.  Solenoid pinch valve apparatus and method for medical fluid applications having reduced noise production 
US20110193343A1 (en) *  20100208  20110811  Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd.  Wind turbine generator and blade pitch angle control method thereof 
US20110227556A1 (en) *  20080622  20110922  United Electronic Industries, Inc  Dynamically powering a position and angle digital detection and simulation output 
US20110295434A1 (en) *  20100528  20111201  Luc Tai P  Multiple Volatile Material Dispensing Device And Operating Methodologies Therefore 
US20120098546A1 (en) *  20101026  20120426  Martin Stokes  Testing a control system including a valve 
US20120321485A1 (en) *  20100317  20121220  Etatron D.S. Spa.  Control device of the piston stroke of a dosing pump for high performance automatic flow regulation 
US8425200B2 (en)  20090421  20130423  Xylem IP Holdings LLC.  Pump controller 
US20130106405A1 (en) *  20100329  20130502  Seibersdorf Labor Gmbh  Device for detecting the position of an actuator 
US20130169287A1 (en) *  20100811  20130704  SauerDanfoss Gmbh & Co. Ohg  Method and device for determining the state of an electrically controlled valve 
US8547677B2 (en)  20050301  20131001  X2Y Attenuators, Llc  Method for making internally overlapped conditioners 
US8587915B2 (en)  19970408  20131119  X2Y Attenuators, Llc  Arrangement for energy conditioning 
US9036319B2 (en)  19970408  20150519  X2Y Attenuators, Llc  Arrangement for energy conditioning 
US9054094B2 (en)  19970408  20150609  X2Y Attenuators, Llc  Energy conditioning circuit arrangement for integrated circuit 
US9252694B2 (en) *  20140425  20160202  Freescale Semiconductor, Inc.  Method and apparatus for detecting a state of an alternator regulator 
US9793839B2 (en) *  20160314  20171017  Anpec Electronics Corporation  Motor control circuit 
Families Citing this family (93)
Publication number  Priority date  Publication date  Assignee  Title 

US7301748B2 (en)  19970408  20071127  Anthony Anthony A  Universal energy conditioning interposer with circuit architecture 
US7385357B2 (en)  19990621  20080610  Access Business Group International Llc  Inductively coupled ballast circuit 
JP3893033B2 (en) *  20010629  20070314  オークマ株式会社  Position detecting device 
DE10224750A1 (en)  20020604  20031224  Fresenius Medical Care De Gmbh  An apparatus for treating a medical fluid 
WO2004053317A1 (en) *  20021210  20040624  Mikuni Corporation  Fuelinjection control method and fuelinjection control device 
US7134993B2 (en) *  20040129  20061114  Ge Inspection Technologies, Lp  Method and apparatus for improving the operation of a remote viewing device by changing the calibration settings of its articulation servos 
US7126805B2 (en) *  20030410  20061024  Honda Motor Co., Ltd.  Solenoid driving device 
DE10325705B3 (en) *  20030606  20050525  Bayerische Motoren Werke Ag  Method for controlling the movement of an armature of an electromagnetic actuator 
WO2005012758A1 (en) *  20030731  20050210  The Foundation For The Promotion Of Industrial Science  Electromagnetic damper controller 
US7122990B2 (en) *  20030915  20061017  Princeton Technology Corporation  Digital servo motor controller IC design for preventing the power feedback effect during manual adjusting the servo motor 
DE10351105B4 (en) *  20031103  20060119  Tuchenhagen Gmbh  Electrical circuitry for controlling the switching movement of valves 
EP1698033A4 (en)  20031222  20100721  X2Y Attenuators Llc  Internally shielded energy conditioner 
JP2005261135A (en) *  20040312  20050922  Seiko Epson Corp  Motor and drive control system of the same 
US7484940B2 (en) *  20040428  20090203  Kinetic Ceramics, Inc.  Piezoelectric fluid pump 
US20050278160A1 (en) *  20040614  20051215  Donnelly James M  Reduction of settling time in dynamic simulations 
DE112004002963B4 (en) *  20040924  20100422  Mitsubishi Denki K.K.  Detecting means for detecting a movement of the armature or armature position in an elevator brake 
KR100652590B1 (en) *  20041210  20061201  엘지전자 주식회사  Motor driving apparatus and method for reciprocating compressor 
KR100565264B1 (en) *  20050113  20060322  엘지전자 주식회사  Outer stator fixing apparatus for reciprocating compressor 
KR100688526B1 (en) *  20050128  20070302  삼성전자주식회사  Method for controlling seek servo in consideration of a variation in supply voltage and disk drive using the same 
US7817397B2 (en)  20050301  20101019  X2Y Attenuators, Llc  Energy conditioner with tied through electrodes 
US20060219497A1 (en) *  20050330  20061005  Organek Gregory J  Residual magnetic devices and methods 
DE102005040536A1 (en) *  20050826  20070329  Honeywell Technologies Sarl  Method and apparatus for measuring a force and a position 
DE102005061670B4 (en) *  20051222  20080807  Trithor Gmbh  A method for inductive heating of a workpiece 
CA2646423A1 (en) *  20060310  20070920  Edsa Micro Corporation  Systems and methods for real time protective device evaluation in an electrical power distribution system 
US8026777B2 (en)  20060307  20110927  X2Y Attenuators, Llc  Energy conditioner structures 
EP2005202A4 (en) *  20060412  20110316  Edsa Micro Corp  Systems and methods for performing automatic realtime harmonics analyses for use in realtime power analytics of an electrical power distribution system 
US8775934B2 (en) *  20060719  20140708  Power Analytics Corporation  Systems and methods for creation of a schematic user interface for monitoring and predicting the realtime health, reliability and performance of an electrical power system 
US7840395B2 (en) *  20060310  20101123  Edsa Micro Corporation  Systems and methods for predictive monitoring including realtime strength and security analysis in an electrical power distribution system 
US8036872B2 (en) *  20060310  20111011  Edsa Micro Corporation  Systems and methods for performing automatic realtime harmonics analyses for use in realtime power analytics of an electrical power distribution system 
US9557723B2 (en)  20060719  20170131  Power Analytics Corporation  Realtime predictive systems for intelligent energy monitoring and management of electrical power networks 
US8959006B2 (en) *  20060310  20150217  Power Analytics Corporation  Systems and methods for automatic realtime capacity assessment for use in realtime power analytics of an electrical power distribution system 
US7693608B2 (en) *  20060412  20100406  Edsa Micro Corporation  Systems and methods for alarm filtering and management within a realtime data acquisition and monitoring environment 
US8170856B2 (en)  20060412  20120501  Power Analytics Corporation  Systems and methods for realtime advanced visualization for predicting the health, reliability and performance of an electrical power system 
US8229722B2 (en) *  20070516  20120724  Power Analytics Corporation  Electrical power system modeling, design, analysis, and reporting via a clientserver application framework 
US8131401B2 (en) *  20060719  20120306  Power Analytics Corporation  Realtime stability indexing for intelligent energy monitoring and management of electrical power network system 
US7969146B2 (en) *  20060512  20110628  ParkerHannifin Corporation  Displacement measurement device 
WO2007147612A1 (en) *  20060623  20071227  Ab Skf  Intrinsically safe vibration and condition monitoring system and the parts thereof 
US8155943B2 (en) *  20071012  20120410  Power Analytics Corporation  Systems and methods for automatically converting CAD drawing files into intelligent objects with database connectivity for the design, analysis, and simulation of electrical power systems 
US9092593B2 (en)  20070925  20150728  Power Analytics Corporation  Systems and methods for intuitive modeling of complex networks in a digital environment 
DE102006045353A1 (en) *  20060926  20080403  Lucas Automotive Gmbh  Control unit and method for controlling an electromagnetic valve arrangement 
JP4967595B2 (en) *  20061020  20120704  トヨタ自動車株式会社  Converter control device 
CN200976109Y (en) *  20061020  20071114  东莞东城威仪塑胶电子制品厂  Reciprocating object control system 
KR100807943B1 (en) *  20061207  20080228  미쓰비시덴키 가부시키가이샤  Armature movement detection apparatus and armature position estimation apparatus for an elevator brake 
FR2919421B1 (en) *  20070723  20180216  Schneider Electric Ind Sas  electromagnetic actuator has at least two windings 
WO2009046109A3 (en) *  20071005  20100121  Oceaneering International, Inc.  Controllable caliper 
CA2883059A1 (en) *  20071107  20091112  Power Analytics Corporation  Systems and methods for realtime forecasting and predicting of electrical peaks and managing the energy, health, reliability, and performance of electrical power systems based onan artificial adaptive neural network 
EP2107242B1 (en)  20080401  20111228  Societe Des Produits Nestle S.A.  Beverage dispensing apparatus comprising a solenoid pump and method of controlling the solenoid pump 
JP5375822B2 (en) *  20080402  20131225  日産自動車株式会社  Vehicle equipped with a drive control device for a drive control apparatus and drive control method and an electric actuator of the electric actuator 
FR2938112A1 (en) *  20081031  20100507  Constance Guisset  Interrupter forming device for e.g. light fixture, has electronic circuit changing state of output of device based on presence/absence of mobile part in levitation position, where mobile part is in shape of person, animal or celestial body 
DE102010005568A1 (en) *  20090130  20100819  Borgwarner Inc., Auburn Hills  Estimate of Solenoidaktuatorkraftleitung by analysis of voltage and current signals 
US20100206990A1 (en) *  20090213  20100819  The Trustees Of Dartmouth College  System And Method For Icemaker And Aircraft Wing With Combined Electromechanical And Electrothermal Pulse Deicing 
US7887065B2 (en) *  20090224  20110215  Hadley Products  Height control valve for vehicle leveling system 
US8159808B2 (en) *  20090226  20120417  Raytheon Company  +28V aircraft transient suppression 
US8296913B2 (en) *  20090330  20121030  The Boeing Company  Thermally switched ferromagnetic latching support system 
EP2433029B1 (en) *  20090522  20141022  RollsRoyce PLC  Device, method and program for automatic control computers for electromagnetic dampers 
WO2011008858A1 (en)  20090715  20110120  Fresenius Medical Care Holdings, Inc.  Medical fluid cassettes and related systems and methods 
JP5056878B2 (en) *  20100319  20121024  株式会社村田製作所  Circuit module 
EP2553088A4 (en) *  20100331  20140108  Weyerhaeuser Nr Co  Methods of multiplying plant embryogenic tissue in a bioreactor 
WO2011155976A3 (en) *  20100604  20130228  Chauncey Sayre  Phase change pulse engine 
DE102010041880A1 (en) *  20101001  20120405  Continental Automotive Gmbh  Determining the ballistic trajectory of an electromagnetically driven armature of a Spulenaktuators 
JP5818231B2 (en) *  20110131  20151118  スズキ株式会社  Drive control apparatus for a hybrid vehicle 
US9624915B2 (en)  20110309  20170418  Fresenius Medical Care Holdings, Inc.  Medical fluid delivery sets and related systems and methods 
EP2695094A4 (en) *  20110408  20141112  Transoft Solutions Inc  Process and apparatus for generating a threedimensional swept envelope of a vehicle 
US9746388B2 (en) *  20110629  20170829  Honeywell International Inc.  Wireless telemetry using voltage and pulse intervals 
US8698486B2 (en) *  20110916  20140415  General Electric Company  Methods and systems for use in checking the polarity of multicoil servos 
US8943906B2 (en) *  20111222  20150203  Caterpillar Inc.  Solenoid force measurement system and method 
CN103311047B (en) *  20120307  20150513  吉林永大电气开关有限公司  Permanent magnetic actuator 
JP2013200720A (en) *  20120326  20131003  Aisin Aw Co Ltd  Control device and control method of solenoid valve 
US9610392B2 (en)  20120608  20170404  Fresenius Medical Care Holdings, Inc.  Medical fluid cassettes and related systems and methods 
US9500188B2 (en) *  20120611  20161122  Fresenius Medical Care Holdings, Inc.  Medical fluid cassettes and related systems and methods 
DE102012106922A1 (en)  20120730  20140130  Eaton Electrical Ip Gmbh & Co. Kg  An apparatus for controlling the electromagnetic drive of a switchgear, in particular a contactor 
US9698665B2 (en) *  20120914  20170704  Sparq Systems, Inc.  Digital controller for a power converter 
US9335170B2 (en) *  20121128  20160510  Freescale Semiconductor, Inc.  Inertial sensor and method of levitation effect compensation 
DE102012112692A1 (en)  20121220  20140626  Eaton Electrical Ip Gmbh & Co. Kg  Apparatus and method for operating an electromagnetic switching device drive 
US20140277812A1 (en) *  20130313  20140918  YiChun Shih  Dual loop digital low drop regulator and current sharing control apparatus for distributable voltage regulators 
US9260123B2 (en) *  20130823  20160216  ElectroMotive Diesel, Inc.  System and method for determining locomotive position in a consist 
EP3069365B1 (en) *  20131112  20180110  ABB Schweiz AG  Method for controlling a contactor device, and control unit 
WO2015095720A1 (en) *  20131219  20150625  Great Plains Diesel Technologies, L.C.  Fuel pressure detection by fast magnetostrictive actuator 
US20150232309A1 (en) *  20140220  20150820  Gray Manufacturing Company, Inc.  Pneumatic wheel lift synchronization 
EP3117508A4 (en) *  20140313  20180110  Etalim Inc  Electromechanical transducer apparatus for converting between mechanical energy and electrical energy 
US9664159B2 (en) *  20140320  20170530  GM Global Technology Operations LLC  Parameter estimation in an actuator 
US9777686B2 (en) *  20140320  20171003  GM Global Technology Operations LLC  Actuator motion control 
US20150295469A1 (en) *  20140415  20151015  Meir ALFASI  Magnetic gadolinium propulsion generator 
DE102014208112A1 (en) *  20140429  20151029  KnorrBremse Gmbh  Coil apparatus for an electromagnetic track brake for a railway vehicle, magnetic rail brake for a rail vehicle and method for mounting at least a connecting cable of a coil of an electromagnetic Schienenbremsefür a rail vehicle 
DE102014209587B4 (en) *  20140520  20160331  Continental Automotive Gmbh  Characterization of a measurement channel for measuring a feedback signal which is generated by a that are available in operating fuel injector 
US20160051740A1 (en) *  20140821  20160225  Fenwal, Inc.  MagnetBased Systems And Methods For Transferring Fluid 
US9452890B2 (en)  20141017  20160927  Smalley Manufacturing Co., Inc.  Linear wave motion conveyor 
JP2016085571A (en) *  20141024  20160519  オークマ株式会社  Numerical controller 
JP2016090473A (en) *  20141107  20160523  株式会社堀場製作所  Interferometer, spectrophotometer using interferometer, and control program of interferometer 
US9682602B2 (en) *  20150126  20170620  Showa Corporation  Control apparatus for damping force varying damper and damping force varying damper system 
DE102015001584A1 (en) *  20150211  20160811  Wabco Europe Bvba  Solenoid valve, valve means with such solenoid valve, so that vehicle and method for operating a solenoid valve 
US20160257551A1 (en) *  20150304  20160908  Sodastream Industries Ltd.  Dosing system 
JP6104302B2 (en) *  20150312  20170329  三菱電機株式会社  Vehiclemounted engine control unit 
Citations (52)
Publication number  Priority date  Publication date  Assignee  Title 

US2399065A (en)  19410324  19460423  Arrow Hart & Hegeman Electric  Electromagnetic switch coil mounting 
US3153229A (en)  19630513  19641013  Charles E Roberts  Digital actuator and direct digital transducer employing same 
US3324356A (en)  19670606  Electromagnet  
US3671814A (en)  19700422  19720620  Voith Getriebe Kg  Electromagnet with a fieldresponsive control system 
US3754154A (en)  19710208  19730821  P Massie  Sealed pump and drive therefor 
US3819305A (en) *  19710827  19740625  British Petroleum Co  Liquid product control system 
US3846682A (en)  19710208  19741105  P Massie  Sealed pump and drive circuits therefor 
US3932792A (en)  19721120  19760113  Massie Philip E  Sealed pump and drive circuits therefor 
US4150653A (en)  19760204  19790424  ThomsonCsf  System employing a magnetosensitive element for producing an electric signal in synchronism with the periodic movement of a part and application thereof in internal combustion engines 
US4150922A (en) *  19750627  19790424  Battelle Memorial Institute  Electromagnet motor control for constant volume pumping 
US4276004A (en) *  19780614  19810630  MesserschmittBoelkowBiochm Gesellschaft Mit Beschrankter Haftung  Infusion pump 
US4305702A (en) *  19790917  19811215  Hartley E Dale  Pump with expandable chamber 
US4307668A (en)  19800519  19811229  Vinson Roy D  Transportation system unitizing permanent magnets for levitation of a vehicle 
US4327695A (en) *  19801222  19820504  Ford Motor Company  Unit fuel injector assembly with feedback control 
US4368501A (en)  19800926  19830111  Dover Corporation  Control of electromagnetic solenoid 
US4434450A (en)  19811221  19840228  General Electric Company  Controlled flux contactor 
US4450427A (en)  19811221  19840522  General Electric Company  Contactor with flux sensor 
US4479162A (en)  19820809  19841023  Eaton Corporation  High speed reciprocal electromagnetic actuator with cancelled retardingflux 
US4578604A (en)  19811120  19860325  Dante Giardini  Solenoid actuators 
US4608620A (en)  19851114  19860826  Westinghouse Electric Corp.  Magnetic sensor for armature and stator 
US4638279A (en)  19840228  19870120  La Telemecanique Electrique  Noiseless electromagnet and a contactor using such an electromagnet 
US4656400A (en)  19850708  19870407  Synektron Corporation  Variable reluctance actuators having improved constant force control and positionsensing features 
US4659969A (en)  19840809  19870421  Synektron Corporation  Variable reluctance actuator having position sensing and control 
US4665348A (en)  19840809  19870512  Synektron Corporation  Method for sensing and controlling the position of a variable reluctance actuator 
US4700165A (en)  19840625  19871013  La Telemecanique Electrique  DC electromagnet equipped with a voltage surge damping device 
US4710740A (en)  19870120  19871201  Eaton Corporation  Electromagnetic operator for a contactor with improved shock pad 
US4793263A (en)  19860801  19881227  The Boeing Company  Integrated linear synchronous unipolar motor with controlled permanent magnet bias 
US4868708A (en)  19860723  19890919  MesserschmittBolkowBlohm Gmbh  Method for voltage control of the magnets of a magnetically levitated railroad and associated control unit 
US4910633A (en)  19880907  19900320  Quinn Louis P  Magnetic levitation apparatus and method 
US4978865A (en)  19880720  19901218  Vdo Adolf Schindling Ag  Circuit for regulating a pulsating current 
US5002471A (en) *  19870720  19910326  D.F. Laboratories Ltd.  Disposable cell and diaphragm pump for use of same 
US5053911A (en)  19890602  19911001  Motorola, Inc.  Solenoid closure detection 
US5062774A (en) *  19891201  19911105  Abbott Laboratories  Solution pumping system including disposable pump cassette 
US5076890A (en) *  19890316  19911231  DorrOliver Incorporated  Method for pulp quality control and regulation 
US5093754A (en)  19881018  19920303  Seiko Seiki Kabushiki Kaisha  Control system for a magnetic levitation body 
US5128825A (en)  19900201  19920707  Westinghouse Electric Corp.  Electrical contactor with controlled closure characteristic 
US5264982A (en)  19900830  19931123  U.S. Philips Corporation  Electromagnetic support with unilateral control currents 
US5267091A (en)  19910718  19931130  Computer Sciences Corporation  Levitating support and positioning system 
US5359490A (en)  19890824  19941025  Kabushiki Kaisha Yaskawa Denki Seisakusho  Method of controlling moving element of magnetic levitation and transport system 
US5381297A (en)  19930618  19950110  Siemens Automotive L.P.  System and method for operating high speed solenoid actuated devices 
US5406440A (en)  19920501  19950411  AllenBradley Company, Inc.  Softclosure electrical contactor 
US5442671A (en)  19940906  19950815  Motorola, Inc.  Circuit and method of detecting actuator movement 
US5442515A (en)  19911210  19950815  Clark Equipment Company  Method and apparatus for controlling the current through a magnetic coil 
US5467244A (en)  19920103  19951114  British Nuclear Fuels Plc  Apparatus for the electromagnetic control of the suspension of an object 
US5481187A (en) *  19911129  19960102  Caterpillar Inc.  Method and apparatus for determining the position of an armature in an electromagnetic actuator 
US5539608A (en)  19930225  19960723  Eaton Corporation  Electronic interlock for electromagnetic contactor 
US5546268A (en)  19940728  19960813  Eaton Corporation  Electromagnetic device with current regulated closure characteristic 
US5588816A (en) *  19930526  19961231  Quest Medical, Inc.  Disposable cassette for cardioplegia delivery system 
US5602711A (en)  19920103  19970211  British Nuclear Fuels Plc  Apparatus for monitoring inductance 
US5621603A (en)  19950726  19970415  United Technologies Corporation  Pulse width modulated solenoid driver controller 
US5673165A (en)  19940831  19970930  Aeg Niederspannungstechnik Gmbh  Circuit arrangement for controlling the electromagnetic drive of a switching device 
US5724223A (en)  19920122  19980303  Mannesmann Rexroth Gmbh  Control of a proportional valve using mains voltage 
Family Cites Families (2)
Publication number  Priority date  Publication date  Assignee  Title 

JP2576958B2 (en) *  19870928  19970129  株式会社ゼクセル  Solenoid valve controlled distributortype fuel injection system 
US5351555A (en) *  19910729  19941004  Magnetoelastic Devices, Inc.  Circularly magnetized noncontact torque sensor and method for measuring torque using same 
Patent Citations (52)
Publication number  Priority date  Publication date  Assignee  Title 

US3324356A (en)  19670606  Electromagnet  
US2399065A (en)  19410324  19460423  Arrow Hart & Hegeman Electric  Electromagnetic switch coil mounting 
US3153229A (en)  19630513  19641013  Charles E Roberts  Digital actuator and direct digital transducer employing same 
US3671814A (en)  19700422  19720620  Voith Getriebe Kg  Electromagnet with a fieldresponsive control system 
US3754154A (en)  19710208  19730821  P Massie  Sealed pump and drive therefor 
US3846682A (en)  19710208  19741105  P Massie  Sealed pump and drive circuits therefor 
US3819305A (en) *  19710827  19740625  British Petroleum Co  Liquid product control system 
US3932792A (en)  19721120  19760113  Massie Philip E  Sealed pump and drive circuits therefor 
US4150922A (en) *  19750627  19790424  Battelle Memorial Institute  Electromagnet motor control for constant volume pumping 
US4150653A (en)  19760204  19790424  ThomsonCsf  System employing a magnetosensitive element for producing an electric signal in synchronism with the periodic movement of a part and application thereof in internal combustion engines 
US4276004A (en) *  19780614  19810630  MesserschmittBoelkowBiochm Gesellschaft Mit Beschrankter Haftung  Infusion pump 
US4305702A (en) *  19790917  19811215  Hartley E Dale  Pump with expandable chamber 
US4307668A (en)  19800519  19811229  Vinson Roy D  Transportation system unitizing permanent magnets for levitation of a vehicle 
US4368501A (en)  19800926  19830111  Dover Corporation  Control of electromagnetic solenoid 
US4327695A (en) *  19801222  19820504  Ford Motor Company  Unit fuel injector assembly with feedback control 
US4578604A (en)  19811120  19860325  Dante Giardini  Solenoid actuators 
US4434450A (en)  19811221  19840228  General Electric Company  Controlled flux contactor 
US4450427A (en)  19811221  19840522  General Electric Company  Contactor with flux sensor 
US4479162A (en)  19820809  19841023  Eaton Corporation  High speed reciprocal electromagnetic actuator with cancelled retardingflux 
US4638279A (en)  19840228  19870120  La Telemecanique Electrique  Noiseless electromagnet and a contactor using such an electromagnet 
US4700165A (en)  19840625  19871013  La Telemecanique Electrique  DC electromagnet equipped with a voltage surge damping device 
US4659969A (en)  19840809  19870421  Synektron Corporation  Variable reluctance actuator having position sensing and control 
US4665348A (en)  19840809  19870512  Synektron Corporation  Method for sensing and controlling the position of a variable reluctance actuator 
US4656400A (en)  19850708  19870407  Synektron Corporation  Variable reluctance actuators having improved constant force control and positionsensing features 
US4608620A (en)  19851114  19860826  Westinghouse Electric Corp.  Magnetic sensor for armature and stator 
US4868708A (en)  19860723  19890919  MesserschmittBolkowBlohm Gmbh  Method for voltage control of the magnets of a magnetically levitated railroad and associated control unit 
US4793263A (en)  19860801  19881227  The Boeing Company  Integrated linear synchronous unipolar motor with controlled permanent magnet bias 
US4710740A (en)  19870120  19871201  Eaton Corporation  Electromagnetic operator for a contactor with improved shock pad 
US5002471A (en) *  19870720  19910326  D.F. Laboratories Ltd.  Disposable cell and diaphragm pump for use of same 
US4978865A (en)  19880720  19901218  Vdo Adolf Schindling Ag  Circuit for regulating a pulsating current 
US4910633A (en)  19880907  19900320  Quinn Louis P  Magnetic levitation apparatus and method 
US5093754A (en)  19881018  19920303  Seiko Seiki Kabushiki Kaisha  Control system for a magnetic levitation body 
US5076890A (en) *  19890316  19911231  DorrOliver Incorporated  Method for pulp quality control and regulation 
US5053911A (en)  19890602  19911001  Motorola, Inc.  Solenoid closure detection 
US5359490A (en)  19890824  19941025  Kabushiki Kaisha Yaskawa Denki Seisakusho  Method of controlling moving element of magnetic levitation and transport system 
US5062774A (en) *  19891201  19911105  Abbott Laboratories  Solution pumping system including disposable pump cassette 
US5128825A (en)  19900201  19920707  Westinghouse Electric Corp.  Electrical contactor with controlled closure characteristic 
US5264982A (en)  19900830  19931123  U.S. Philips Corporation  Electromagnetic support with unilateral control currents 
US5267091A (en)  19910718  19931130  Computer Sciences Corporation  Levitating support and positioning system 
US5481187A (en) *  19911129  19960102  Caterpillar Inc.  Method and apparatus for determining the position of an armature in an electromagnetic actuator 
US5442515A (en)  19911210  19950815  Clark Equipment Company  Method and apparatus for controlling the current through a magnetic coil 
US5602711A (en)  19920103  19970211  British Nuclear Fuels Plc  Apparatus for monitoring inductance 
US5467244A (en)  19920103  19951114  British Nuclear Fuels Plc  Apparatus for the electromagnetic control of the suspension of an object 
US5724223A (en)  19920122  19980303  Mannesmann Rexroth Gmbh  Control of a proportional valve using mains voltage 
US5406440A (en)  19920501  19950411  AllenBradley Company, Inc.  Softclosure electrical contactor 
US5539608A (en)  19930225  19960723  Eaton Corporation  Electronic interlock for electromagnetic contactor 
US5588816A (en) *  19930526  19961231  Quest Medical, Inc.  Disposable cassette for cardioplegia delivery system 
US5381297A (en)  19930618  19950110  Siemens Automotive L.P.  System and method for operating high speed solenoid actuated devices 
US5546268A (en)  19940728  19960813  Eaton Corporation  Electromagnetic device with current regulated closure characteristic 
US5673165A (en)  19940831  19970930  Aeg Niederspannungstechnik Gmbh  Circuit arrangement for controlling the electromagnetic drive of a switching device 
US5442671A (en)  19940906  19950815  Motorola, Inc.  Circuit and method of detecting actuator movement 
US5621603A (en)  19950726  19970415  United Technologies Corporation  Pulse width modulated solenoid driver controller 
Cited By (45)
Publication number  Priority date  Publication date  Assignee  Title 

US9054094B2 (en)  19970408  20150609  X2Y Attenuators, Llc  Energy conditioning circuit arrangement for integrated circuit 
US8587915B2 (en)  19970408  20131119  X2Y Attenuators, Llc  Arrangement for energy conditioning 
US9373592B2 (en)  19970408  20160621  X2Y Attenuators, Llc  Arrangement for energy conditioning 
US9036319B2 (en)  19970408  20150519  X2Y Attenuators, Llc  Arrangement for energy conditioning 
US9019679B2 (en)  19970408  20150428  X2Y Attenuators, Llc  Arrangement for energy conditioning 
US7331654B2 (en) *  20011013  20080219  Willett International Limited  Solenoid valve 
US20060244783A1 (en) *  20011013  20061102  Willet International Limited  Solenoid valve 
US20050103902A1 (en) *  20011013  20050519  Hornsell David A.  Solenoid valve 
US7410245B2 (en)  20011013  20080812  Willett International Limited  Solenoid valve 
US8547677B2 (en)  20050301  20131001  X2Y Attenuators, Llc  Method for making internally overlapped conditioners 
US9001486B2 (en)  20050301  20150407  X2Y Attenuators, Llc  Internally overlapped conditioners 
US20070009266A1 (en) *  20050707  20070111  Andrew Bothwell  Multimode optical fibre communication system 
US7680421B2 (en) *  20050707  20100316  Avago Technologies General Ip (Singapore) Pte. Ltd.  Multimode optical fibre communication system 
US7454299B2 (en) *  20050920  20081118  Siemens Aktiengesellschaft  Device and method for detecting an end of a movement of a valve piston in a valve 
US20070067127A1 (en) *  20050920  20070322  Siemens Aktiengesellschaft  Device and method for detecting an end of a movement of a valve piston in a valve 
US8269589B2 (en) *  20060825  20120918  Siemens Aktiengesellschaft  Electromagnetic drive unit and an electromechanical switching device 
US20090302980A1 (en) *  20060825  20091210  Siemens Aktiengesellschaft  Electromagnetic Drive Unit and an Electomechanical Switching Device 
US8657587B2 (en)  20070522  20140225  Medtronic, Inc.  End of stroke detection for electromagnetic pump 
US20080294098A1 (en) *  20070522  20081127  Medtronic, Inc.  End of stroke detection for electromagnetic pump 
US8007247B2 (en) *  20070522  20110830  Medtronic, Inc.  End of stroke detection for electromagnetic pump 
US20090213520A1 (en) *  20080222  20090827  Baxter International Inc.  Medical fluid machine having solenoid control system with reduced hold current 
US7782590B2 (en) *  20080222  20100824  Baxter International Inc.  Medical fluid machine having solenoid control system with reduced hold current 
US8594981B2 (en) *  20080622  20131126  United Electronic Industries  Dynamically powering a position and angle digital detection and simulation output 
US20140114631A1 (en) *  20080622  20140424  United Electronic Industries  Dynamically powering a position and angle digital detection and simulation output 
US20110227556A1 (en) *  20080622  20110922  United Electronic Industries, Inc  Dynamically powering a position and angle digital detection and simulation output 
US9015013B2 (en) *  20080622  20150421  United Electronic Industries, Inc  Dynamically powering a position and angle digital detection and simulation output 
US8425200B2 (en)  20090421  20130423  Xylem IP Holdings LLC.  Pump controller 
US20100308243A1 (en) *  20090605  20101209  Baxter International Inc.  Solenoid pinch valve apparatus and method for medical fluid applications having reduced noise production 
US9435459B2 (en)  20090605  20160906  Baxter International Inc.  Solenoid pinch valve apparatus and method for medical fluid applications having reduced noise production 
US9782577B2 (en)  20090605  20171010  Baxter International Inc.  Solenoid pinch valve apparatus and method for medical fluid applications having reduced noise production 
US8217524B2 (en) *  20100208  20120710  Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd.  Wind turbine generator and blade pitch angle control method thereof 
US20110193343A1 (en) *  20100208  20110811  Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd.  Wind turbine generator and blade pitch angle control method thereof 
US20120321485A1 (en) *  20100317  20121220  Etatron D.S. Spa.  Control device of the piston stroke of a dosing pump for high performance automatic flow regulation 
US9170085B2 (en) *  20100329  20151027  Ait Austrian Institute Of Technology Gmbh  Device for detecting the position of an actuator 
US20130106405A1 (en) *  20100329  20130502  Seibersdorf Labor Gmbh  Device for detecting the position of an actuator 
US8868245B2 (en) *  20100528  20141021  S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc.  Multiple volatile material dispensing device and operating methodologies therefore 
US20120283884A1 (en) *  20100528  20121108  Luc Tai P  Multiple Volatile Material Dispensing Device and Operating Methodologies Therefore 
US20110295434A1 (en) *  20100528  20111201  Luc Tai P  Multiple Volatile Material Dispensing Device And Operating Methodologies Therefore 
US8255089B2 (en) *  20100528  20120828  S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc.  Multiple volatile material dispensing device and operating methodologies therefore 
US8565926B2 (en) *  20100528  20131022  S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc.  Multiple volatile material dispensing device and operating methodologies therefore 
US20130169287A1 (en) *  20100811  20130704  SauerDanfoss Gmbh & Co. Ohg  Method and device for determining the state of an electrically controlled valve 
US20120098546A1 (en) *  20101026  20120426  Martin Stokes  Testing a control system including a valve 
US9195229B2 (en) *  20101026  20151124  Ge Oil & Gas Uk Limited  Testing a control system including a valve 
US9252694B2 (en) *  20140425  20160202  Freescale Semiconductor, Inc.  Method and apparatus for detecting a state of an alternator regulator 
US9793839B2 (en) *  20160314  20171017  Anpec Electronics Corporation  Motor control circuit 
Also Published As
Publication number  Publication date  Type 

EP1356486A1 (en)  20031029  application 
WO2002061780A1 (en)  20020808  application 
US20060171091A1 (en)  20060803  application 
US20010043450A1 (en)  20011122  application 
JP2004525592A (en)  20040819  application 
CA2436155A1 (en)  20020808  application 
KR20030084915A (en)  20031101  application 
Similar Documents
Publication  Publication Date  Title 

US6737946B2 (en)  Solenoid for efficient pullin and quick landing  
US6321700B1 (en)  Electromagnetically actuatable adjustment device and method of operation  
McCann et al.  Application of a slidingmode observer for position and speed estimation in switched reluctance motor drives  
US5818680A (en)  Apparatus for controlling armature movements in an electromagnetic circuit  
US6174136B1 (en)  Pump control and method of operating same  
US6225767B1 (en)  Trajectory controller  
US20040146417A1 (en)  Digital fluid pump  
US6285151B1 (en)  Method of compensation for flux control of an electromechanical actuator  
US5811954A (en)  Reduced noise controller for a switched reluctance machine using active noise cancellation  
US6727668B1 (en)  Precision brushless motor control utilizing independent phase parameters  
US6128175A (en)  Apparatus and method for electronically reducing the impact of an armature in a fuel injector  
US7053583B1 (en)  Brushless DC motor control  
US4813443A (en)  Method for controllably positioning a solenoid plunger  
US20040119434A1 (en)  System and method for monitoring and control  
US6731083B2 (en)  Flux feedback control system  
Husain et al.  Modeling, simulation, and control of switched reluctance motor drives  
Eyabi et al.  Modeling and sensorless control of an electromagnetic valve actuator  
EP0959479A2 (en)  A method for controlling velocity of an armature of an electromagnetic actuator  
Parlikar et al.  Design and experimental implementation of an electromagnetic engine valve drive  
US6269784B1 (en)  Electrically actuable engine valve providing position output  
Chladny et al.  Modeling automotive gasexchange solenoid valve actuators  
US6397798B1 (en)  Method and device for electromagnetic valve actuating  
US6390039B2 (en)  Engine valve drive control apparatus and method  
US6794839B1 (en)  Precision motor control with selective current waveform profiles in separate stator core segments  
WO2013191267A1 (en)  Control device for internal combustion engine 
Legal Events
Date  Code  Title  Description 

AS  Assignment 
Owner name: THISTLE ADVISORS INC., WYOMING Free format text: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST;ASSIGNOR:VENTURE SCIENTIFICS LLC;REEL/FRAME:015276/0051 Effective date: 20040322 

REMI  Maintenance fee reminder mailed  
LAPS  Lapse for failure to pay maintenance fees  
FP  Expired due to failure to pay maintenance fee 
Effective date: 20090913 